Honestly, better to pirate the game because ZA/UM fucked over the original devs and now they don’t get any money from the game’s sales - and it ruined any potential for a sequel.
I don't normally do this, and I'll go do some searching of my own, but any chance for a tldw on the video? What's the background? 2.5 hours is a bit much and the intro was sort of wandering and more or less.just repeated that yes, the game was stolen from them.
I have a former best friend who still somehow finds a way to fanboy over Musk, despite the excessive information about him and actions he's taken. All very public and easy to find information, yet never swayed the guy's opinion and the last time we talked about it he was still fanboying. It really should have been a warning sign of things to come with that friendship. Truly, only mentally and emotionally inept losers are still on Musk's side and the former friend's the only person I know who still has a favorable opinion of Musk.
Tough luck man. Have been in this situation a couple times.
Current working theory is that the reason are our relationship templates formed in childhood.
If someone has had abusive and/or gaslighting role models early on, they will not avert or even seek narcissistic relationships. I have been in this situation for a long time and am working for years to get rid of it.
This is what I think happens with people liking clear cut narcissists like musk and having friends who „somehow“ like him.
Sometimes people flock to a figure because they see them as a struggling underdog challenging the whole world.
But even that angle kinda falls apart when you remember that this guy is the wealthiest person in the world. He's not a brave rebel. He's not even taking a stance on something important, though he very well could, with his money.
A friendly reminder that the creators in the past have asked those interested in the game to pirate it instead, though of course I do not endorse such activities.
Ok now this is sad, but it made me burst out laughing. This is an org that allows actual gambling with actual money on actual gambling machines in a sports game rated 3+, while having a cards minigame makes a game 17+ otherwise. These guys want to make sure a person is old enough to… Do what, exactly? It’s titties, isn’t it? They always only go after the titties.
"What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?”
Justice Stephen Breyer*, somehow arguing the opposite of what you’d think this paragraph means.
A lot of people just can't cope with the completely normal interest in sex that starts at puberty, and they want to bend the world backwards to pretend that this is a switch that flips on people's heads exactly at 18. I get that it's a complicated matter to handle, but it's also a fact of life.
There are right and wrong ways to protect kids and teens, but banning tits is just a display to appease parents who don't really want to think about it. If they did care about their well-being they'd focus on being more watchful towards creeps in online platforms rather than policing raunchy fictional content and convincing themselves teens aren't figuring out how to get it anyway, as they always have.
Meanwhile gambling for children makes a lot of money, so why would they care about the psychological issues that it causes on developing brains.
I was kinda hoping the enoughmuskspam community would be focused on talking about innovative tech/engineering work happening at other companies. I guess that’s more the point of “futurology”, but still…
His companies are fine. (minus Twitter) SpaceX and Tesla are great he just needs to keep his fucking mouth shut and do his job. The man is cringe and is taking his billionaire status too hard.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe voices can be copyrighted. After all, if a human can replicate someone else’s voice, they get booked as professional impersonators rather than sued into oblivion.
The difference here is that the voice replication happens though AI now. Would we see the same outrage if the voices in these mods were just people that sounded like the original voice actors?
Copyright law needs to be fortified or a lot of voice actors are about to get screwed over big time. AI voice replication by modders is only the beginning, once big companies find the output acceptable these people may very well lose their jobs.
That’s a decent theoretical legal basis, but the voice lines are property of the game company rather than the voice actors.
If this interpretation of copyright law on AI models will be the outcome of the two (three?) big AI lawsuits related to stable diffusion, most AI companies will be completely fucked. Everything from Stable Diffusion to ChatGPT 4 will instantly be in trouble.
The problem with that approach is that the resulting AI doesn't contain any identifiable "copies" of the material that was used to train it. No copying, no copyright. The AI model is not a legally recognizable derivative work.
If the future output of the model that happens to sound very similar to the original voice actor counts as a copyright violation, then human sound-alikes and impersonators would also be in violation and things become a huge mess.
The problem with that approach is that the resulting AI doesn't contain any identifiable "copies" of the material that was used to train it. No copying, no copyright. The AI model is not a legally recognizable derivative work.
That's a HUGE assumption you've made, and certainly not something that has been tested in court, let alone found to be true.
In the context of existing legal precedent, there's an argument to be made that the resulting model is itself a derivative work of the copyright-protected works, even if it does not literally contain an identifiable copy, as it is a derivative of the work in the common meaning of the term.
If the future output of the model that happens to sound very similar to the original voice actor counts as a copyright violation, then human sound-alikes and impersonators would also be in violation and things become a huge mess.
A key distinction here is that a human brain is not a work, and in that sense, a human brain learning things is not a derivative work.
No, I know how these neural nets are trained and how they're structured. They really don't contain any identifiable copies of the material used to train it.
and certainly not something that has been tested in court
Sure, this is brand new tech. It takes time for the court cases to churn their way through the system. If that's going to be the ultimate arbiter, though, then what's to discuss in the meantime?
Also, neural network weights are just a bunch of numbers, and I'm pretty sure data can't be copyrighted. And yes, images and sounds and video stored on a computer are numbers too, but those can be played back or viewed by a human in a meaningful way, and as such represent a work.
Also, neural network weights are just a bunch of numbers, and I'm pretty sure data can't be copyrighted.
Just being "a bunch of numbers" doesn't stop it from being a work, it doesn't stop it from being a derivative work, and you absolutely can copyright data -- all digitally encoded works are "just data".
A trained AI is not a measurement of the natural world. It is a thing that has been created from the processing of other things -- in the common sense of it the word, it is derivative of those works. What remains, IMO, is the question of if it would be a work, or something else, and if that something else would be distinct enough from being a work to matter.
Just being "a bunch of numbers" doesn't stop it from being a work, it doesn't stop it from being a derivative work
I suggest reading my entire comment.
A trained AI is not a measurement of the natural world. It is a thing that has been created from the processing of other things -- in the common sense of it the word, it is derivative of those works. What remains, IMO, is the question of if it would be a work, or something else, and if that something else would be distinct enough from being a work to matter.
It's only a work if your brain is a work. We agree that in a digitized picture, those numbers represent the picture itself and thus constitute a work (which you would have known if you read beyond the first sentence of my comment). The weights that make up a neural network represent encodings into neurons, and as such should be treated the same way as neural encodings in a brain.
I did, buddy. You're just wrong. You can copyright data. A work can be "just data". Again, we're not talking about a set of measurements of the natural world.
It's only a work if your brain is a work. (...) The weights that make up a neural network represent encodings into neurons, and as such should be treated the same way as neural encodings in a brain.
Okay, I see how you have the hot take that a generative model is brain-like to you, but that's a hot take -- it's not a legally accepted fact that a trained model is not a work.
You understand that, right? You do get that this hasn't been debated in court, and what you think is correct is not necessarily how the legal system will rule on the matter, yeah?
Because the argument that a trained generative model is a work is also pretty coherent. It's a thing that you can distribute, even monetise. It isn't a person, it isn't an intelligence, it's essentially part of a program, and it's the output of labour performed by someone.
The fact that something models neurons does not mean it can't be a work. That's not... coherent. You've jumped from A to Z and your argument to get there is "human brain has neurons". Like, okay? Does that somehow mean anything that is vaguely neuron-like is not a work? So if I make a mechanical neuron, I can't copyright it? I can't patent it?
No, I know how these neural nets are trained and how they're structured. They really don't contain any identifiable copies of the material used to train it.
Go back and read my comment in full, please. I addressed that directly.
I'm finally reading a comment from someone who actually knows how machine learning works. Too many people craft their argument before learning about the technology. Well, they think reading a few blog articles counts as research maybe.
Making derivatives of existing game assets is a core part of modding. I don’t see how this is any different from splicing existing voice lines to make them say whatever you want them to say.
Maybe it’s morally wrong to use the work of voice actors for NSFW purposes without their consent, but I’m not sure if it’s illegal from a copyright standpoint.
I think this could technically fall under name, image, likeness rights. Your voice could count as likeness and can’t be used without your concent. I know the big movie studios need to get permission from the family to do their creepy dead actor cameos like Disney did with Peter Cushing. I think this would be the same.
Humans can't entirely replicate one another's voices. I recognize voices far better than faces, and I know I'm not the only one out there who does so. There are a lot of good imitators out there, but they can't replicate another voice.
I am honestly surprised Starfield has done as well as it has. Fallout 4 will probably be the last Bethesda game I ever pay for unless they overhaul their entire business model. It’s very clear from all of what happened to 76 and interviews from Todd that the creativity at Bethesda is dead. It’s not gamers making games. It’s executives wanting to print money. At this point I hesitate to pay for any AAA game.
No one deserves to be held in such high regard that they get a free pass for bad behavior.
None of that should be necessary, as the SKSE team reacted quickly and has already updated the Script Extender to work with the new patch.
Hopefully the updated SKSE will fix the old mods. But Bethesda really wants to keep making money off Skyrim, and the new Starfield. I am really worried about the next Elder Scrolls game, because Bethesda has really gone down as a game company. Greed is the word.
You have to understand that time moves forward. That was just before my time as a video game player and a lot of the modern audience won’t know what you’re referencing at all.
This is precisely what they’re banking on. Current consumers will be put off but future generations grow up in the enshittified world believing it to be normal. You have to look back in history to see the full trend and most people won’t do that.
Considering Gabe is ex-microsoft and wants to distance himself as much as possible from them, I highly doubt that’d work, he’d go down fighting at the very least.
Does he want to distance himself? Gabe said he learned more in his short months-long tenure at MS than he did in the rest of his academic career. He dropped out of Harvard, mind you.
He modeled his entire company off of MS. He even adopted their primary strategy, buy, polish and package. It's literally just embrace, extend, extinguish all over. Balmer taught him very well.
I really don't get why people think he's all that different from any other billionaire. He got there by buying out competition, and if they wouldn't sell, theft and litigation.
Not saying he’s different from other rich people, but Valve developing both SteamOS and Proton is a clear message they don’t want to rely on Microsoft and their software.
Microsoft doesn't want to rely on licensed software every time they install their programs either. Again, Valve taking a queue from MS. And that's fine BTW, the whole industry follows MS.
Moreover the real issue, the difference in computing cost between running Win10 with all the unnecessary boost vs Linux is massive. Had they used Windows it would've costed more to be able to run less.
As to being reliant on Windows, that's been their standard most of their history. Steam was Windows based. If Windows were to go ahead with making a stripped down Windows OS that was specific to gaming, such as the one demoed in a code jam earlier this year, you can bet steam would be selling that version of Windows direct from their store, and likely have a easy tool ready to use to install it to your deck. They would probably offer it as an installation option too. Why not? There's no good reason they shouldn't. The whole verified question goes out the window. That's huge. But again, MS controls that situation, not Valve. They're still reliant on MS in major ways.
pcgamer.com
Hot