I hear this argument all the time, but I don’t really understand it. I remember when Pokemon first came out and me and all the other kids were imagining wandering through dense jungles hunting for rare and elusive Pokemon. Sure, we’d imagine battles too, but the franchise always seemed way more about discovery and adventure than about battling. That’s why I haven’t managed to finish a pokemon have since X and Y, in spite of trying each one. The battles get better, sure, but I just don’t really care. Luckily, Legends Arceus was exactly what I always pictured Pokemon to be about, and I had a blast playing through it. Hopefully the next Legends game will be just as good.

It’s America. One of the most common reasons for something to exist here is because it makes money, and this is making a lot of money.

Dang, I just started playing a couple weeks ago. But I guess that means I made it just in time to be one of the people who stop playing in solidarity!

While that’s true, it was mostly just because Mondale was from Minnesota, and even then he only won by 0.18%.

Looks cool, but I worry that they’ve got so many different enemies pulling in different directions that they won’t really get into an interesting story for any of them. The reason I loved Origins was because it really focused on the darkspawn, both in terms of the lore surrounding them, and the effect their invasion has on society. Then the DLC came out and teased that the darkspawn are more than they appear to be, setting up for future games to delve into that even more. It was great, but then the next couple of games came out and didn’t seem to have that same feeling of depth, and I lost interest. If the game is just a checklist of different things to kill, I’m not really interested in playing it.

Would you want to enter a legal battle with Nintendo? This system is broken in a lot of different ways, one of which is the incredible expense of legal fees even if you’re in such an open-and-shut case as someone clearly using your intellectual property without your consent. The one with deeper pockets wins regardless of what the law says.

But they DO have the exclusive right. People want to be told the world is different - that it’s better - but if we want to change it we need to see it for what it is. If we say “They don’t have the right!” before we’ve done the work necessary to strip them of the right, then we’ll never even understand how to start fixing this broken system.

Well yeah, as the owners they have the exclusive right to determine what’s okay. They’re just following the rules as they’ve been laid out by centuries of corporate lobbying for more exploitable copyright laws. Those are what we need to focus on if we want more fair use of intellectual property that the rights holder has already sufficiently profited from - the thing that such protections were initially meant to ensure to a much more reasonable extent.

I sure hope so, but I don’t see much changing. I guess we’ll see by looking at where Reddit is at business-wise by next year. People were saying it was doomed last summer after the 3rd party app fiasco, and their daily traffic has only gone up since then. I’ve long since lost all faith in the masses making the best choices for themselves.

They’re better than the OLD alternative, which was total boycotting at best, and torches and pitchforks at worst. The NEW alternative is complaining about it for a week or two, then continuing on without making any changes at all. They don’t mind the new alternative.

As someone who works with door hardware, this would be a pretty easy interview.

Makes sense. I’ve always been disappointed that instead of using better processing power to make bigger, more complex games, we used it to make the same games with more complex animations and details. I don’t want a game that only differs from its predecessors through use of graphical upgrades like individual blades of grass swaying in the wind, or the character starting to sweat in relation to their exertion; I want games with PS1-PS2 graphics and animation quality, but with complex gameplay that the consoles of that era could only dream of being able to handle.

You’d think so, right?

This is a great point. The results of an IQ test aren’t really measuring a person, they’re measuring a byproduct of that person, which is significantly less informative.

It’s important to define was “equal” is in this context. Some people hear “equal” and think they must measure exactly the same in every test, but that’s not how the word is being used in this context. It’s more that people are so varied from one person to another that no test can truly judge them well enough to differentiate them when it comes to inherent worth.

One person might measure above another in one test, but there are surely many others where the results would be flipped. There are so many different things you could test a person on that in the end none of them really matter; any one measurement is like trying to figure out what an extinct animal looked like from a single tiny piece of a fossil.

That’s what the IQ test is doing - it’s taking one tiny piece of human intelligence, which itself is one tiny piece of what might be said to make up a person’s value, and trying to use that to extrapolate information about them that simply can’t be taken from such a 1-dimensional test. It’s not worthless, but it needs to be paired with a bunch of other tests before it can really say anything, and even then it wouldn’t say much.

Oh, I’m sure they’ll patch anything that gets exposed, absolutely. But that’s just it - there are already several examples of people using AI to do non-brand-friendly stuff, but all the developers have to do is go “whoops, patched” and everyone’s fine. They have no need to go out of their way to pay people to catch these issues early; they can just wait until a PR issue happens, patch whatever caused it, and move on.

Ah, I see. It’s true that these issues cast a negative light on AI, but I doubt most people will even hear about most of them, or even really understand them if they do. Even when talking about brand security, there’s little incentive for these companies to actually address the issues - the AI train is already full-steam ahead.

I work with construction plans in my job, and just a few weeks ago I had to talk the CEO of the company I work for out of spending thousands on a program that “adds AI to blueprints.” It literally just added a chatgpt interface to a pdf viewer. The chat wasn’t even able to actually interact with the PDF in any way. He was enthralled by the “demo” that a rep had shown him at an expo, that I’m sure was set up to make it look way more useful than it really was. After that whole fiasco, I lost faith that the people in charge of whether or not AI programs are adopted will actually do their due diligence to ensure they’re actually helpful.

Having a good brand image only matters if people are willing to look.

I highly doubt that OpenAI or any other AI developer would see any real repercussions, even if they had a security hole that someone managed to exploit to cause harm. Companies exist to make money, and OpenAI is no exception; if it’s more profitable to release a dangerous product than a safe one, and they won’t get in trouble for it, they’ll likely have no issues with releasing their product with security holes.

Unfortunately, the question can’t be “should we be charging them for this?” Nobody is going to force them to pay, and they have no reason to do it on their own. Barring an entire cultural revolution, the question instead must be “should we do it anyway to prevent this from being used in harmful ways?” And the answer is yes. Our society is designed to maximize profits, usually for people who already have money, so if you’re working within the confines of that society, you need to factor that into your reasoning.

Companies have long since decided that ethics is nothing more than a burden getting in the way of their profits, and you’ll have a hard time going against the will of the companies in a capitalist country.

I don’t know much about Helium, so I’m a bit confused… What’s to stop us from purifying grade 4 further into 4.7 and beyond besides cost? If the only thing stopping us is cost, then it’s not inaccurate to say that, regardless of grade, the non-renewable element of Helium is being used in frivolous ways because it makes more money to find profitable ways to use the lower-grade helium than to actually further purify and conserve it for more important usage.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: when a company does something that shows it doesn’t have its customers’ best interests in mind, it’s imperative that it be immediately and wholly abandoned.

Companies have long since learned that we’ll ignore major red flags for the sake of convenience, and at this point they’re not even trying to hide the flags - they’re proudly flying them and laughing as we continue to give them business.