It depends. In most games, you kill NPCs in self-defense or because the game specifically asks you to in order to make progress in the story. If you keep killing non-threatening NPCs only because simulated violence against innocent people gives you pleasure, there is a chance that you are a disturbed individual who needs help.
Oh boy... this argument is decades old at this point it makes no sense... are you saying people who run over pedestrians on GTA just for the fun of it or punch other people or beings in Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat are all psychos, correlating with faulty and dangerous members of society? You can resort to data to see the truth for yourself on this. Anecdotal but I've came across disturbing people who would preach morality and ethics to other people more than anything else.
>are you saying people who run over pedestrians on GTA just for the fun of it or punch other people or beings in Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat are all psychos
Pretty sure he said not all, but there is a chance some are. Which seems sensible.
Most wifebeaters think everyone beats their wife, and those who don’t like it just need to get over it. Never played gta, and zero interest in such forms of “entertainment.” Normal people don’t play shooter games, sorry.
The original gta was not a shooter game. Also, "normal" boys play computer games, including shooters. Maybe look at the statistics first and see if you are in the normal or abnormal group.
Any source you have that makes the link between wifebeaters and gamers?
> If you keep killing non-threatening NPCs only because simulated violence against innocent people gives you pleasure, there is a chance that you are a disturbed individual who needs help.
Sigh. Until I see a peer-reviewed study that shows otherwise - this is just the specter of Senator Lieberman once again leering its head back up.
I'm pretty sure God of War's point was that if you kept playing it, you were kinda fucked up.
And yet they kept making more of them. They made it obvious at the end when all the Greek Gods were dead and the Greek world was basically destroyed by the actions of Kratos. Plenty of deaths of innocent's here.
No, It doesn’t depend. This is a ridiculous take. Of course fictional violence doesn’t harm you. Disturbed people cause harm. Media doesn’t create disturbed people.
We aren't banning books here. This is more akin to an author declining to write a certain kind of book, or a video game studio declining to create a certain kind of game.
But that exactly how human mathematicians do things. They upload their research to preprint services like arXiv as they await it to be peer reviewed and accepted into a journal. Why is it okay for mathematicians to publish preprint papers, but when OpenAI does it, it's irresponsible?
The difference is that human mathematicians wouldn't post it online, claim they have achieved some proof, and then check after publication and announcing the results to the world. You would always check your work first, then publish it. It's not about preprint vs peer-reviewed. That of course is normal practice, it's the high-profile claims that are being made that are the problem here. They just blindly published results produced by the LLM, with 0 due diligence.
Yes they would, in many fields it is (was?) normal to post a preprint and leave it up for the next year while the handful of other people working on the topic digest it and agree on whether it’s right or not, before even submitting to a journal. Sometimes the others would find an isssue in an argument and you hopefully manage to fix it or potentially retract / not submit to a journal.
You may want to read beyond the first part of a sentence. Yes, preprints have always been a thing. The claims and publicity around the potential findings are handled differently here. That's where the issue is.
What would’ve made you not complain about OpenAI’s papers?
They had over a hundred papers, they basically did a GitHub dump and a pretty bare blog post that mentions they have a retraction policy. Should they have done it anonymously? Is the blog post the problem? Is it that it’s on GitHub? Or what?
They should have posted the ones they actually confirmed. They don't have any time pressure to release hundreds of new proofs, they could do 10 a week for all I care, as long as they make sure everything is actually sound and properly checked. You know, do the due diligence with the results. Not only would that prevent them from having to do retractions, it also wouldn't be any less impressive. Just not as much shock marketing value.
It's really not that hard to understand. My issue is NOT with the fact that they publish results. It's purely about how it's done and what the misleading claims are that come along with them.
This goes back to the pre-print question then, which you just dismissed
> in many fields it is (was?) normal to post a preprint and leave it up for the next year while the handful of other people working on the topic digest it and agree on whether it’s right or not, before even submitting to a journal. Sometimes the others would find an isssue in an argument and you hopefully manage to fix it or potentially retract / not submit to a journal.
A pre-print has a chance to be incorrect. Pre-prints do sometimes end up incorrect and need adjustments or even retraction. It sounds like you define "confirming it before you publish" as being 100% certain it's correct. Nobody is 100% sure their pre-print is correct. If it was 100% correct and never retracted there'd be no need for this process of sharing and digesting it before actually submitting. You do your best and maybe someone else thinks about it in a new light you missed and it's suddenly wrong.
Is the rate of retraction and/or correction going to be worse for OpenAI than it would be in normal circumstances for a normal human author? Only time will tell, it's only been a few days.
But all these complaints really just look like pulling at whatever straw to deny what's happening.
They could've instead hired a select group of mathematicians to spend then next 6 months checking these works, trying to understand and refine them, build on them etc... You and the others here would have 100% complained. Even more bitterly. And then you would've perhaps been right: it would have looked like there's a select in-group of mathematicians that get to see and work on the new breakthroughs while the rest of the field is kept in the dark. Instead of now where it's public, anyone can do that. Maybe that's what will happen in the next release. It's not gonna be good though.
ok, that said there has alaways been a bunch of "maybe theorems" it's was a thing even in paul erdos books i think. now we have "maybe proofs". still better than "no proofs"
See DDOS. That's exactly how humans access a web page. Why is it okay for humans to access a webpage, but when a bot swarm does it, it's irresponsible?
That's an analogy among many others, but the point is that OpenAI should use their tools responsibly. If they have 700 potential ground-breaking but unproven results, they should share it in a way that they do not get free (possibly unwarranted) publicity for it.
It's sad that we even have to think about this. Ogre Battle 64 is 27 years old now. Under the law that preceded the Copyright Act of 1976, it would be entering the public domain right about now.
It's absurd how long we've made copyright terms, and it's really endangering preservation.
True I just wish they didn't have to skulk in the dark for what is essentially a public service. I also think some projects aren't so lucky.
We probably have a pretty brief window where projects like this can even be done where there's people alive who worked on the original systems. It would be nice if these were encouraged rather than being in some gray area.
More infringing than emulators. De/recompilation projects are pretty clearly 'derivative works' of the original copyrighted program code, even if they require the original ROM in order to extract other assets necessary to compile a fully playable artifact.
The closer analogy would be fan-translation patches, which are also pretty clearly copyright-infringing derivative works though generally tolerated by rights holders.
Companies often encourage (or at least turn a blind eye to) creative derivative works from fan communities, especially if they're non-commercial and aren't cutting into the market share of their own official products enough for them to take notice.
This is a recomp project, not a decomp project; the original binary is supplied by the user, mechanically translated into source code at an architecture level (rather than a human-readable level), and patched. It’s AOT dynamic recompilation and the original IP isn’t distributed.
I do agree that decompilation projects are obviously not transformative (the only fair use feet they really have to stand on are purpose and market effect), but recomp projects are a little more interesting and might live on much less shaky footing.
Thank you for explaining this. I had the exact same misunderstanding as the parent poster, and was only corrected (and educated) by reading your comment.
A hypothetical relating to the legal aspects: Since this was mostly done by an LLM, the legal considerations would become incredibly interesting in cases where the original code (source or binary) was illegally leaked. What happens if the LLM saw the leaked code in its training material?
(My non-lawyer brain thinks it's completely obvious that in that case you have a derived work, but apparently the world has decided that it's completely fine to train LLMs on e.g. GPL code without the output being considered derived, so what the hell do I know…)
> the world has decided that it's completely fine to train LLMs on e.g. GPL code without the output being considered derived
I think it's more of a "the constitution is not a suicide pact" approach to GPL: while the GPL is obviously violated by its inclusion in the training corpus, we have two options:
- demand the destruction of LLMs that are trained on copyrighted or copylefted works and the training of new ones
- accept that LLMs that are trained on copyrighted or copylefted works are more important to humanity than the rights of the authors
Well if it's the second, then surely I can train my LLM using the frontier labs' models too? And have my LLM "interpret and reproduce" GTA 6?
How is any of this going to work out if we just decide to throw out copyright like this?
(I am well aware that it is not currently technically feasible to copyright-wash GTA 6. Replace that game with a best-selling novel or whatever.)
And, if we do decide that copyright is just gone, can we please make laws to that effect? Instead of just shrugging our shoulders and going "oh well, this new thing is useful, so we'll let it slide, but don't you dare to pirate movies, because reasons!"
I see that now… why did they check it in? One of the whole points of this approach is that that assembler should be trivial to re-derive by the end user since it’s just the original program listing. Some of the Xbox 360 recomp projects like https://github.com/mchughalex/skate3recomp offer a better example of how this pattern can be achieved without distributing the binary at any intermediate level.
It's basically the same as emulation as long as the recompiled code doesn't get distributed (which this project doesn't do AFAIK). Functionally the only difference between a "recomp" and traditional console emulation is that the assembly code that the CPU runs is translated to C then compiled to native code, rather than being interpreted or JIT compiled at runtime. Traditionally recompilation was mainly used when porting games to platforms where the emulation overhead would have been too much, like if you were making a GBA port of a Sega Genesis game. With these enhanced ports, I guess the idea is that if you're making a game specific "emulator" anyway, you might as well recompile the code and get rid of the overhead of interpretation.
Note that this isn't the same as a "decomp" where the goal is to make readable source code that resembles something that the original developers would have worked with. A "recomp" simply translates the assembly instructions to C. You end up with "assembly code but in C" rather than idiomatic C code.
I'm not aware of legal trouble involving the the Zelda 64 recomp project, which would have a much higher chance of attracting the attention of big N (especially now that a new version of OoT is coming out).
At least in the way that I see it, a recomp is like building your own turntable to play your vinyl records, after stydying their grooves and infering how they would sound (so I guess that it would be less gray than an emulator).
IIRC, EU have some laws protecting "interoperability", i.e. making a program work on other platforms. I suspect decompiling is considered as "interoperability".
No one can say anything, no game rom is ever bundled in the official releases of these recomps. We always have to provide the roms. Where from, it's another story.
Personally, I welcome this. Archive.today has been blocking my country from using the site for years and for no good reason. Maybe if enough countries block the site, someone more reasonable will build an alternative.
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.
The other side said the same thing when the J6 rioters were sentenced. Likewise, these people will also get pardoned in a couple of years, so it's mostly symbolic.
Yeah actually I haven't been dissapointed with the quality of the new videos so far, I will hold my breath though as venture capitals priorities aren't always aligned long-term.
The problem I have encountered is that some of the physics explanations are of dubious quality. A good example is the debate between Veratasium, Steve Mould, and ElectroBOOM about “whether electricity travels at the speed of light.” The Veratasium video comes across as pretty clickbait-y. That said, the combined narrative across these three channels was pretty interesting.
No, there have been a bunch of new cracks in the recent months by the same author who made this crack. RE9 is the first time they've cracked a game that just very recently came out. This means that any upcoming games will likely be cracked quickly as well, unless the Denuvo developers make some big changes in how their protection works.
reply