copygirl

joined 2 years ago
[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 59 points 4 days ago (7 children)

Tangentially related: Oh boi I just love AI bros coming out of nowhere defending GenAI when nobody asked for their opinion. Wish more communities / instances would take a hard anti-AI stance and just get rid of them. It's not like anyone will make them see where they're wrong.

[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 4 days ago

You see, it's not the internet censorship tool that prevents you from speaking your mind, it's the people that control it!

You can dislike the tool.

AI was built on stolen work, and will not create a generation of future artists that simply has a new tool available. It'll create a generation of workers that create profit for the wealthy class by generating garbage until it's somewhat presentable. Meanwhile, AI will starve out because it will run out of data to learn from.

Generative AI is the current fad of the tech bro world and it's what everyone clings onto because if everything goes well (for them), they can get future generations hooked and make stupid money. Meanwhile, media literacy will further decline, and with it the ability to look up anything on the internet, making it even more easy for the masses to be controlled.

[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 week ago

Perhaps after having familiarized with GDScript, learning C# with the same game engine and API is also an interesting way to learn another programming language. There's also extensions for other languages, like Rust.

[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 weeks ago

To add to what you're saying: To be fair, most of the lawsuit I don't really agree with, but maybe it's just laying it on thick.

Part of the argument is them trying to separate the Steam "Store" from the Steam "Gaming Platform", and in many ways that's obviously not possible. But they say that because of Steam's monopolistic-ish position, publishers can't not be on the "gaming platform", because it's where most people want their games, or else they'll lose out of a large chunk of money. (And without it, these games likely would not be made in the first place.) Thus Steam can force these unfair terms on developers.

There was also this portion on discounts that was quite revealing:

  1. For example, Valve has set up visibility in its Steam Store to focus on games that are nominally “on sale” to gamers. Knowing that the best way to reach their audience is through discounting, game publishers must artificially inflate their list prices so they have headroom for discounting. But the “sale” price is not consistently available, and therefore some gamers pay an artificially inflated list price for the game. These supracompetitive prices increase Valve’s cut, force gamers to overpay, and prevent publishers from setting the most efficient game prices they could in the first place. Even worse, these supracompetitive prices are transmitted across the broader market by the contractual restraints discussed above.

They're admitting to inflating games' prices, so they can then offer a fake discount that's closer to the actual price they actually wanted the game to be. And then they complain when Valve doesn't let them list a game on sale for an extended period of time, just so they can essentially scam people. (Probably, once again, standard in the industry and elsewhere, but I feel like that's gotta be banned by EU pro-consumer laws.)

[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago

The EU can and should force Steam to get rid of the MFN clause. All Valve needs to do is to let competing stores price games cheaper than on Steam. (So long as Steam services are not involved with that off-Steam purchase.)

There's still plenty of benefits Steam provides to customers that many may choose it over a different store even if they could get the game for cheaper. And Steam also provides developers with tools that make Steam worth it, like Steam networking and cloud saves. As Gabe Newell famously said about piracy, but I believe this applies in this case too, it's simply a service problem.

[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

And this was only mentioned in a footnote in the complaint document, though I saw it many times when browsing through the earlier lawsuit documents. Interestingly, this sounds like it should already be illegal in the EU, as per the Wikipedia link you gave.

[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

How clear is the wording? Is it possible to find the text of the terms / agreement / contract online? Or is it covered by an NDA?

[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 weeks ago

This is true! Vintage Story does it, for example. They're doing okay from what I can tell, but it's more of an exception. It's pretty clear that they are losing out on potential customers. Notably, you also lose out on regional pricing, which is pretty difficult to set up yourself. If you're creating games for a living, you don't have much of a choice about whether you put your game on Steam.

 

Have you ever found yourself in a conversation with people about Valve's anti-competitive practices? Well, I have. And I defended Valve's requirement to let customers choose their preferred storefront when buying games, as long as Steam keys were involved. After all, you end up getting to use all of Steam's features and services when you activate the game on Steam. We can argue about this, but it turns out, that was a red herring!

I've spend the better part of today digging through this newest class action lawsuit, again made by Wolfire, against Valve. (This has been going for a while.) I was compiling a response to each of the points in the overview (can't go through the whole thing, sorry), and there was one thing that stood out after searching for the "Price Veto Provision". I had heard people make claims to the same effect before, but they were never able to back it up. (And it being conflated with the "Steam Key Price Parity Provision" made it worse.) So here it is:

Valve pressures developers into price parity across different storefronts, even if Steam keys are NOT part of the equation.

We basically see any selling of the game on PC, Steam key or not, as a part of the same shared PC market- so even if you weren’t using Steam keys, we’d just choose to stop selling a game if it was always running discounts of 75% off on one store but 50% off on ours. . . . That stays true, even for DRM-free sales or sales on a store with its own keys like UPLAY or Origin.

When I looked for this quote, I found a podcast episode that I hadn't listened to (The Hated One, Episode 228 - More evidence of Valve enforcing price parity beyond Steam keys), but that thankfully provided some sources for more related quotes, from earlier lawsuits, such as:

“The biggest takeaway is, don’t disadvantage Steam customers. For instance, it wouldn’t be fair to sell your DLC for $10 on Steam if you’re selling it for $5 or giving it as a reward for $5 donations. We would ask that Steam customers get that lower $5 price as well.”

“If the offer you’re making fundamentally disadvantages someone who bought your game on Steam, it’s probably not a great thing for us or our customers (even if you don’t find a specific rule describing precisely that scenario).”

a Steam account manager, Tom Giardino, reportedly told publisher Wolfire that Steam would delist any games available for sale at a lower price elsewhere, whether or not using Steam keys.

The developer asked, “Regarding the pricing policy, can a non-Steam variant of a game be sold at a different price than on the Steam store page?” Steam’s response was “Selling the game off Steam at a lower price wouldn’t be considered giving Steam users a fair deal.”

These were apparently from 2017 and 2018, so things might've changed since then, but it's reason enough to question Valve. I unfortunately haven't been able to find much on these other quotes (search engine enshittification, or has this really not been talked about?), and I'm unsure why they're not also included in this newest lawsuit, but there they are. Hopefully this helps anyone who was misinformed or lacked proof, like myself. Also if anyone has related stories from gamedevs or articles that actually get to the core of the problem, I'd love it if you could share them.

[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Because we are talking about someone using AI for most if not all tasks that involve thinking and/or creativity, as if it was any other tool.

[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

First of all, it's hypothetical. If only for the fact that using a wheelchair in real-life actually greatly increases difficulty getting around. The point is that if you don't lose your muscles, they get weaker. Happens with anyone that has an accident that causes them to be unable to use their muscles for a prolonged amount of time. See also: Astronauts needing to exercise while in space or back on earth because they've not had to use many of their muscles as much due to lack of gravity.

[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Fair point, but many photos are not edited to the point of fundamentally changing them. I wouldn't call a touched up wedding photo a "fake".

edit: I guess I was distracting from the point. Yes, "AI" already implies "fake". Guess if someone were to look for "how to spot fake photos" this would help them find this video?

[–] copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 4 weeks ago

TL;DW:

  • Check the "residual noise"
  • Parallel lines should converge to a single point (vanishing point)
  • Connect shadows to what casts them, extend the lines, they should meet at the light source
 

Quoting the rule from the community for reference:

  1. You must follow the Egg Prime Directive. You may not push or coerce people into identifying or not identifying a certain way. You must respect them as the gender they claim to identify as. In addition it is extremely in poor taste to make assumptions about other people’s identities based on external factors, we understand it cannot be helped but it is best not to as it can affect the way you treat others in noticeable ways.

Honestly, I've been anxious about this for a while, not sure if or how to bring this up. I understand the importance of the rule when it involves real people. But I've been seeing comics and memes getting criticized of breaking the Directive a couple of times now. But aren't they just being shared from the creator's perspective? Making fun of their own experience, such as, looking back, pointing out how obvious things seemed? When you see any other comic making fun of some situation, that doesn't mean that applies to everyone. That's not the statement the comic makes. It's just something that may end up being, or having been, true for some people.

Am I wrong in feeling like the Egg Prime Directive is being invoked too easily when it comes to memes and comics?

edit: I hope this is the right place to make this post. (Also, technically, it's breaking the title rule? Are meta posts allowed?) To be fair, I don't recall where this has been happening the most, I've just seen it in my time browsing Lemmy and the many trans memes communities over the last few months. Also, note: The stickied post did not answer my question.

 

cross-posted from: https://pawb.social/post/13665271

Source: Furaffinity

 

I don't see a way to block individual users' posts from showing up in my feeds. There is no "Block" button on any user's page like there is for communities. For some reason I thought there was a way to do this before, but maybe I was just using another frontend? I see some users are blocked when checking my settings. I made sure to disable uBlock Origin to check if it could be an element hiding rule.

For the record these aren't rule breaking users or anything, but instead bots that automatically post things, some of them pulling links straight from reddit. I prefer my Lemmy being populated by humans.

Thank you!

view more: next ›