Here's my conjecture. Large Language Models are the great filter. They represent a local maximum in the technological advancement of a species from which we will not escape.
People will just limit publishing valid works to avoid becoming a hapless plagiarism victim class. Same thing happened to tech bloggers ripped off by low-effort you-tube content makers.
Isomorphic plagiarism makes people feel 23% smarter, but it also provably degrades core skills by 17%.
LLM are great at context search, but are also trivially proven degenerative under recursive self improvement scenarios. We look forwards to stripping their assets at a heavy discount.
Also, we shouldn't kink shame peoples cognitive dildo choices. =3
They don't care about any of that. They're looking for more regulatory capture, to keep smaller labs from catching up by raising the cost of play, and perhaps keeping chinese labs away.
Yes, this is literally just dumb PR. It's Cambridge Analytica claiming that they were controlling people's minds, and people just eating that up because it's part of their juvenile SF fantasy.
I'm lying, it's smart PR. They're going to get the people opposed to AI to give them a monopoly on AI, let it be forced it into every nook and cranny of their society, and let it be priced arbitrarily while the big labs collude on a minute by minute basis. They're selling the problem and also selling the solution, like the best capitalists. And their solution is that they need to be allowed more power in order to sell more of the problem.
edit: And just like the Cambridge Analytica PR, it's got a serious political angle to it; and it's politicians who are really being wooed. If you're taking money from the AI labs, you run as being against the irresponsibility of the AI labs, the biggest fish come out and beg to be regulated just like the social media companies. To show good will, they funnel enormous amounts of money into those politicians, and do media tours about how awesome and therefore scary their product is. And something something China terrorists
Which is exactly the problem. All the folks in charge care about is money. Money has absolutely nothing to do with whether a game is fun to play or not.
An eternal curse on the houses of anyone involved with these AIs.
Money has to do with whether you can make the game. Games are regularly funded by many non-profit options such as co-ops or grants, etc. Developers are free to make games however they want.
... which is why it was, and still is, common economic knowledge that the government must control marketplaces. Meaning the physical areas where trading is taking place.
We've been through this rodeo before you know. Private ownership of markets, with the obvious result monopoly abuses. Hell we've had private money and that was a total disaster too. And now we have VISA as opposed to government controlled payments.
But then people stopped caring about that. With abuse upon abuse the result. Because it's not like this result, that only by buying a prominent position on a marketplace you can have success as a seller is only the case online. This is very much true in meatspace as well.
And now almost everything you can buy is effectively through a privately owned (semi-)monopoly rather than a marketplace. From supermarkets to app stores.
Addendum: and then governments must NOT let anyone, not even other governments, force "whoever pays most" rules (like the EU is forcing through in Europe)
100% not. To equate fun to play to people buying the game is 100% not how you should say making more money is more people buying the game. Money is money. If the game is mediocre but it is fun enough, it can get more money than a game that is more fun but doesn't have as many opportunities to spend.
This is why things like dark patterns exist that try to get you to spend money through FOMO and other mechanisms like loot boxes.
You can argue that all of these things are people having "fun," but I wouldn't define that as fun to play.
Finally, none of these necessitate people buying the game, but rather spending money in the game. Usually, it's free games where people buy a secondary currency to spend on virtual items. Mobile apps, for example, are huge with this.
So the real answer to your question on multiple grounds is no.
Edit: Now, I will give you that people do have to make a choice, but that's like saying that gambling addiction is not real and it's a choice, or drug addiction is real and it's a choice. The reason for alcoholism and Alcoholics Anonymous is bogus because it's just a choice, but it would be dangerous to classify it as just a choice.
Not necessarily. Some of the most profitable games out there are not very fun to play, but they have their monetization strategy nailed down.
People laughed at Blizzard when it came out with the mobile game Diablo Immortal, and I've never heard it listed among Blizzard's best games, but Diablo Immortal was one of, if not the, best earners the company ever made.
reply