The problem is that these OSes have achieved regulatory lock-in. Your bank app won't work on an alternative OS because it's not trusted. In some countries that means you can't access online government services through the standard path either.
How would telling the AI bot not to say something against the law?
I imagine that instruction exists so that people don't end up screenshotting the bot telling users to contact DPAs because they tortured it to say that in a conversation.
There's no punishment for abusing the system like this though. They'll keep trying again and again, just like lawmakers themselves.
"Ah, the law we came up with us unconstitutional and didn't stand up to scrutiny? We'll get em next time!"
Eventually that "next time" does pass and the people doing it will never suffer consewuences for it despite undermining the very institution of representative democracy.
It runs into the problem of region locked licensing stepping onto the toes of other regions.
Imagine a Korean company makes a game and sells a license to an American company to publish their game. Eventually the American company shuts down and is now forced to release the playable game.
This version of the game is now going to compete with the Korean version of the game, because nobody will be enforcing the region lock anymore.
Your reaction to this is probably "great, screw region locking!" but judging by how some of these Korean games do in the west it's entirely possible that they will forego a global/American release altogether. They make most of their money from the Korean or Chinese region. Why would they risk that for a smaller global region?
Personally, I wouldn't mind this, but I can certainly see how this could backfire and keep some of the eastern games exclusively eastern.
All that needs to be done is to produce a game that will remain playable if the company shuts down. Simple as that. It doesn't need to phone home anywhere, it doesn't require an internet connection, it just... turns on and plays.
At that point, any company can just fold whenever they'd like without having to do anything in this area, and everyone who bought the game can breathe easily, double-click their icon and start playing while the publisher's employees go look for other jobs.
If you have a game that's available in multiple regions published by different companies, then the "playable game" will start competing with the still published game in other regions.
This creates financial risk for the developer of the game (in the original region). They might be better off not releasing the game in the US/EU to avoid this risk. Many KR and CN games already don't release globally or it's done as some kind of afterthought.
Does the pattern of licensing out games to third parties for foreign publication even exist anymore? It was obviously very common in the pre-internet, and still extant in the early-mid internet era, but these days my impression is that it's ~universal that if a game has a global release, the studio itself or a direct subsidiary is handling the translations and publication, not introducing an unrelated middleman who gets a huge cut of it. I can think of dozens of games I've played in the last decade that fit this pattern and zero counterexamples.
I think this doesn't really apply to games. Video games have had an incredibly sticky price.
The Legend of Zelda in 1987 was $50. Adjusted for inflation it would cost $151 today.
Diablo 2 released in 1999 at $50. Today that would be $101.
Diablo 3 released in 2012 at $60. Today that would be $88.
Diablo 4 released in 2023 at $70. Even this would be $77 today, despite being only 3 years ago.
Zelda Tears of the Kingdom released in 2023 for $70.
I do agree that the lack of a secondary market is concerning, but I think that in practice subscription services, piracy, and F2P games fulfill the niche of low cost gaming (for now). Don't know what the future holds though.
This is ignoring just how much more copies those games now sell as they did when Diablo 2 was popular and just how insanely have revenues risen while keeping the price.
It's like comparing a price of a modern car to a 1920's Rolls Royce and saying "eh, they're cheap, they're less than 500.000$, why are you complaining?"
>I think that in practice subscription services, piracy, and F2P games fulfill the niche of low cost gaming
F2P is not an alternative because (good) games are not a commodity, each piece is individually valuable (otherwise why conserve?). Subscription services are just enshittification waiting to happen.
Piracy is actually an alternative, but we all lose if consumers are pushed to that.
The lack of secondary market is not only a concern for low cost gamers, it also pushes for monopolies in several different dimensions. For example, you're less likely to move platforms if you can't resell your library. You're also less likely to give a chance to a less known dev if you can't resell in case you don't like it.
>I am now of the opinion that web communities can survive in the same way arts and other liberal pursuits have always survived.
And the only 'users' of these websites will be rich people? Because the moment a paywall goes up on a website it becomes unusable for a large portion of the planet.
Not at all, a few people pay to make it available as a service to others because they want it to exist. It's like this website - there are no (traditional) ads and most of us have paid nothing to use it. A small expenditure creates a good community for technical discussion that the hosts value existing and for being able to occasionally promote their ventures on.
It wouldn't work like that. Yes, there are some exceptions, but that wouldn't work for the vast majority of sites. The rest of them would end up being Facebook pages or Fandom wikis or similar.
I'm not certain how early you saw the internet - but a lot of people threw up websites hosted on consumer quality computers sitting in the corner of their room. Don't underestimate people.
Were the hypothetical "paywalls everywhere" scenario to play out, sites would quickly consolidate their subscriptions. So a subscription to something like Engadget would get you access to a wide swath of sites, making the paywall a lot more palatable overall. This would be the inevitable outcome because it would be the most natural way for sites to compete with other sites.
It doesn't matter because simply having to pay any amount at all makes those sites inaccessible. Most of the world do not have credit cards.
But that aside, I think what we would see is a lot more Facebookification. A bunch of walled gardens that you pay a subscription for and then you get access to a whole slew of sites that FB buys up. Of course, they will make sure every site ends up toeing their line too.
>which simply employs direct signals and ques from cognition and cognitive neuroscience to achieve this.
Does anyone actually do this or is this all post hoc rationalizations on why certain things work? My experience and understanding is that it's all just a bunch of "let's try lots of things and then do more of what did well". Ie it's the result of a crazy amount of iteration rather than "employing cognitive neuroscience".
reply