• 3 Posts
  • 102 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle
  • You should give Claude Code a shot if you have a Claude subscription. I’d say this is where AI actually does a decent job: picking up human slack, under supervision, not replacing humans at anything. AI tools won’t suddenly be productive enough to employ, but I as a professional can use it to accelerate my own workflow. It’s actually where the risk of them taking jobs is real: for example, instead of 10 support people you can have 2 who just supervise the responses of an AI.

    But of course, the Devil’s in the detail. The only reason this is cost effective is because of VC money subsidizing and hiding the real cost of running these models.





  • Not a lawyer, but I’ve had to deal with copyright before. If I’m not mistaken, the only thing the Smite devs could feasibly hold a copyright to is there specific expression of the characters - i.e. the unique visual design, the voice lines, the lore (assuming it’s not also just the lore from already existing public domain works), animations, etc., that’s the only time you’d be in trouble. With game mechanics it’s pretty dicey because I think you’d have a hard time finding a judge to actually rule that any company “owns” a game mechanic. But if you copy how the characters look, the art style, maybe even specific dialogue (which couldn’t be found as part of another public domain work) that’s when you could possibly have a claim.

    But even still, you have to remember that copyright is not this “oh you’ve broken the law you’re a criminal now” type thing where once you’ve “infringed” it’s over. It’s typically handled first via informal means like contacting Steam/Epic/GOG/etc. and saying “hey we believe these guys have stolen our character.” They’ll have to convince the platforms first, and then the platforms will take it down to avoid liability. It’s only if the parties want to pursue it further will they have to take it to court and have a jury/judge rule on it. Copyright suits tend to be ruled on precedent rather than just the black-and-white letter of the law.















  • Your freedom to do those things under capitalism is wholly bound by your existing wealth, and wealth begets wealth. When your parents are well off, you can get into good schools, get better education, and ultimately get a better job and, really, be a better worker bringing more wealth into the already existing pool of wealth your family had. Those who have been disenfranchised by way of things like eminent domain, redlining, or the straight up prosecution of them and their fellow men simply don’t have that option to rise up. They don’t even have the opportunity to try and fail, they’ve failed by their very existence. At a macro scale, once you’ve reached the top (e.x. Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc.) you have the resources to not only out-do any of the competition but to sell products at a loss to starve your competition and bully them into submission, which big companies do all the time instead of investing in better products. It’s just good business.

    Circumstance plays a lot into how much wealth you start out with and how much wealth you end up being able to accrue, so while it’s nice being not even at the top but even just the middle, it’s important to have the mindfulness to know that there are those below you who don’t have the same freedoms, and they’re not there because their businesses did poorly. Some of them are, but most are simply victims of greater powers stealing their capital.


  • What sucks is if there was no commercial part here - i.e. like how you’re doing it just for fun, or if we lived in a magical world where we all just agreed that creative works were the shared output of humanity as a whole - then there would be no problem, we’d all be free to just use what we need to make new things however we want. But there is a commercial part to it, somebody is trying to gain using the collective work of others, and that makes it unethical.