This is why people who are gung ho about AI policing need to slow their role.

If they got their way, what they don’t realize is that it’s actually what the big AI companies have wanted and been begging for all along.

They want AI to stay centralized and impossible to enter as a field.

This is why they want to lose copyright battles eventually such that only they will have the funds to actually afford to make usable AI things in the future (this of course is referring to the types of AI that require training material of that variety).

What that means is there will be no competitive open source self hostable options and we’d all be stuck sharing all our information through the servers of 3 USA companies or 2 Chinese companies while paying out the ass to do so.

What we actually want is sanity, where its the end product that is evaluated against copy right.

For a company selling AI services, you could argue that this is service itself maybe, but then what of an open source model? Is it delivering a service?

I think it should be as it is. If you make something that violates copyright, then you get challenged, not your tools.

Personally I feel that the hate for AI is misplaced (mostly, as I do get there is a lot of nuance regarding peoples feelings on training sourcing etc). Partially because its such a wide catch all term, and then mostly, by far, because all of the problems with AI are actually just problems with the underlying crony capitalism in charge of its development right now.

Every problem like AI “lacking empathy” is down to the people using it not caring to keep it out of places where it fails to accomplish such goals or where they are explicitly using it to strip people of their humanity; something that inherently lacks empathy.

If you take away the horrible business motivations etc, I think its pretty undeniable AI is and will be a great technology for a lot of purposes and not for a lot of the ones its used for now (this continued idea that all UI can be replaced such that programmers wont be needed for specific apps and other such uses).

Obviously we can’t just separate that but I think its important to think about especially regarding regulation. That’s because I believe that big AI currently is practically begging to be regulated such that the moat to create useful AI becomes so large that no useful open source general purpose AI tools can exist without corporate backing. That’s I think one of their end goals along with making it far more expensive to become a competitor.

That being said this is a little bit out of hand in that this was about software in general, and regarding that and AI, I do believe empathy can be included, and built correctly, a computer system could have a lot more empathy than most human beings who typically only have meaningful empathy towards people they personally empathize with in their actions, which leads to awful systemic discrimination reinforcing practices.

As for the flock example, I think its almost certain they got in with some backroom deals, and in a more fair world… where those still exist somehow, the police department would have a contract with some sort of stipulations regarding what happens with false identifications. The police officers also would not be traumatizing people over stolen property in the first place.

That is all to say, I think that often when software is blamed, what should actually be blamed is the business goals that lead to the creation of that software and the people behind them. The software is after all automation of the will of the owners.

Burden of proof? You literally just made your first point about anything I said, I shouldn’t have even wasted the time responding.

You are really staking your argument on thinking companies don’t get consequences for software fuckups?

• Equifax: up to $700M settlement after failing to patch a known vulnerability that led to the 2017 breach
• TSB Bank (UK): £48.65M fine for the 2018 core-banking migration meltdown that locked out customers
• Uber: settled with the victim’s family after its AV killed a pedestrian in testing
• Boeing 737 MAX: paid $2.5B for hiding MCAS flight-control software flaws
• CrowdStrike: shareholders sued after a faulty update locked up Windows PCs worldwide and it lost a shit ton in value over that incident

I’m sure you’ll make up some excuses for why somehow none of these count, but the list is so deep you could debate every example here and 10 more would pop up. Tons more happens behind the scenes too with SLA contracts etc.

This sounds like you knew you were wrong all along but still wanted to be a snide, condescending, and undeservedly arrogant about it.

The fact that some don’t doesn’t mean that none do.

You go do some leg work before requesting it of me after thinking you could just troll your way out of your ridiculous initial comment

Reading your other comments outside this thread, this whole chain seems so illogical. What triggered this bizarre emotional reaction to such a relatively innocuous comment? You must have been reading something in.

With the amount you’ve typed you could have easily typed a rationale. The truth is your opinions don’t hold weight and have no good rationale. That is all.

This is pure pseudo intellectualism because you literally have no argument or point.

You have no reasoning and are projecting that onto me because you can’t explain this opinion your feelings have brought you to.

I like the part where you have no details or arguments, just vibes.

I don’t think this is wise at all.

Its just people putting into words their wish to be able to punish and appoint blame above their wishes to be pragmatic.

If software is better at something, there is no reason to be mad at that software.

More than that, the idea that the software vendor could not be held liable is farcical. Of course they could be, or the company running said software. In fact, they’d probably get more shit than managers who regularly get away with ridiculous shit.

I mean wage theft is the biggest form of theft for a reason, and none of the wage thieves are machines (or at least most aren’t).

It doesn’t “make sense” as in a general rule, it “makes sense” as in most games are designed in such a fashion where this is the case.

It think that is completely ok though. There are many shot guns around with all sorts of variety, and its far too rare that a game lets them be what they would be.

It would be great to show that yea, for a normal person, a shotgun is indeed the ultimate anti infantry weapon.

Truly. I won’t even think about starting a game without looking at the options menu.

Absofuckinglutely.

I also hate that gamers in general have been so cooked in mtxs they don’t even realize that pay to skip grind is still ptw because you get more options than other players.

I semi ok with this if they aren’t locking content behind try hardiness

Just because a bad mechanic has a purpose doesn’t mean it’s not bad.

I hate being forced to think about that shit.

I love a partial solution in Cyberpunk where healing items simply have a cool down.

Odenst make lore sense really, but you can flavour text that up.

Weightlimits mostly serve to add annoying inventory management to a game that is supposed to be an escape.

They should design their games better to not need the player to do that or horde things.

Its part of why I hate how “loot” is typically done.

Seriously, I will rate a game poorly on account of that replay plus bs.

It should only be there so you can experience being fully levelled out for the earlier missions.

Gamers and investors both incentivize this unfortunately and apparently regulators are cool with straight up fraud too.

Ill never forgive no man’s sky, no matter how much they fixed it after.

They were openly fraudulent and got away with it.

Truly.

For multiplayer games, I would rather subscribe to updates than have mtxs in any capacity.

Of course they never offer this though because the mtxs combined with dark patterns work better.

I’m with you except the last sentence.

Tuts should just be direct and move out of your way.

Back onto your main point, one of the things I really like Cyberpunk for was the ability to do so many missions in so many different ways.

Like for the same mission you might just drive by as a netrunner, hack the thing, and keep driving like nothing happened. Or as a Sandevestan user you might slow down time, run past everyone, get thing and leave. Or as a … You get the point.

There are, for any given mission usually like 5 obvious ways you can think of to get it done and the game won’t slap you for it.

On the other hand, the breach protocol in the game sucks so much. They should just remove it.

By the time you’re done the game, you’ll have played that boring, unfun, tedious, not even challenging bs for collectively like an hour.

On my second play through its the first thing I modded out.

Fuck things in games that purely waste your time.

• Auto you lose cutscenees

• Hidden story trees or finicky story trees so you have to meticulously follow guides lest you get a bad end or miss a secret ending

• Weapons that break.

  No. Never. Stop doing it.

• Shotguns that only are effective up to 10 ft

  What game actually has shotguns act like real shotguns???

• Loading screen ass tunnels or hallways or elevators.

  We live in 2025. Evryone has Ssds and there are many ways to load as a player advances. Stop doing this 1990s shit.

• Timers.

  Just never find them fun

• Forced heavy backtracking.

  I’m not having fun, you’re just wasting my time. Fuck you.

• Unrelated puzzle mini games

  Please stop adding worthless busy work into games. One of the first mods I added to Cyberpunk was just to remove the stupid breach protocol. It’s not that its hard, it’s not. It’s just time wasting and annoying. Dispatch is another game with these for no reason. Fallout, Bioshock, fucking so many games have this shit.

  Either I have the level to pick the fucking lock or I don’t. I don’t want to play some half assed unrealistic lockpicking sim for the equivalent of an hour by the time the game is done. It’s like making you have to take each step for your character or breathe. Not the point.

• Obviously all mtxs, goes without saying and marketting dark patterns like everything here.

• Nerfing “”“OP”“” things in single player power fantasy games.

  Are you high? That’s the fucking point!

• Chance based loot.

  Just no. I don’t want to reload a dozen times to get the thing I want. It arguably exists in the world and I should just be able to go find it.

• Loot.

  Stop spreading this shit around making me have to waste time everywhere I go in order to be remotely optimally equipped.

  Just say no to loot.

  Healing should be on a cool down and have upgrades availible like in cyberpunk, Ammunition should be on enemies, cooldown or purchased

  Weapons if loot able should be placed identically with no luck elements, or in exactly the stores they should be in.

Atomfall was so good for its difficulty settings menu. They gave you soo many options. You could really tweak out a lot of parts you didn’t like in the game but make the difficulty whatever you wanted it to be.

The outright scams and marketting dark patterns.

Outside of this, I hate when you have levelled up a character immensely to the point where an errant sneeze could wipe out half a city, and then you flick a boss to defeat their lineage then lose in the cutscene.

I know the reasons why this is done, but I would vastly prefer shorter but more fleshed out game experiences.

A shorter story that is actually repayable naturally where you can do so many things and there are not cutscene losses.

Speaking of which, things like

in Cyberpunk could be so much better if they just didn’t fucking exist.

I don’t want to have to read some guide to know that a a piece of content I really value will exist.

Its not fun to me to have notable portions of a game cut out such that you have to be a wiki reader.

These combined would make a game with a more stress free experience where you can truly just experience the world and not be too fussed about if you stuffed up a certain ending tree etc.

To the extent that they can, while ensuring that if they have more means than average, the child understands, the whole time growing up, that they are privileged, and they did not work to get these things, and that other people have a much more difficult life.

I think often times people don’t do the rest of this, and end up creating monsters.

I don’t think its the helping your child part that makes the monster.

It think more often than not the people who go the opposite route of withholding support they could give to their child to their child, they just make a hateful shitty relationship for no reason.

I’ve always found it bizarre anyone could contort themselves to the point of believing that not helping your child is helping your child when study after study shows that children with assistance in areas like these do better in life significantly.