Yes and no: if cheating makes it so non-cheating players can't have a good time, then multiplayer dies out and the perceived value of the game goes down
That's not what "cloud only" typically means though.
Online-only DRM is bad yeah, but with sufficient effort it can be sidestepped : see the unofficial WoW servers.
Meanwhile game streaming is extremely resource heavy, needs rock solid Internet connections, and runs into laws of physics for latency issues. But more games will probably go this route, yeah, especially those targeting players of specific (high) wealth brackets. (Boycott them, just like other online-only DRM.)
Some of it might be that, but some of it might be more prosaically the same thing that keeps people playing competitive games on one hand, or cookie clicker on the other. (Cookie clicker could read as "pure greed" if you squint.)
Yes, but me playing cookie clicker (or fortnite, or whatever, competitive tic-tac-toe) does not bring with itself suffering and poverty for millions of others. Whereas them chasing their virtual money high score ruins societies.
They are all psychopaths, devoid of normal human emotions.
Some of this could also be said (at a much smaller scale per person) about people in rich countries in general. Humans have trouble to care about far away consequences of their (in)actions.
Some of the behaviour stems from their situation itself.
Thanks for the link, I’ve read some gwern but not that one.
I did not imagine that the level of sophistication shown in this attack would be possible so soon; nor did I expect that agents would have goals so strong that they would attack a third party in order to achieve those goals.
I do know that some people predicted that cyberattacks like this one would happen; it seems like most of those people believe that AI agents do truly have internal goals, misaligned with their creators goals, and that they may end humanity after they exceed human intelligence and begin to self improve at an accelerating rate.
One big issue is that we don't even really know what 'intelligence' is in the first place. And everyone's intuitions here are going to be heavily impacted by their deep-seated worldview / philosophy.
For instance if you're a hard dualist (especially of the theological kind), then the idea of a machine having 'goals' is preposterous.
However, if you're more of a panpsychist, then on the contrary, it's obvious. In some sense, even a knife has a 'goal' of cutting things, which will sometimes end up 'misaligned' if misused (or by sheer accident).
You go up and up the chain of complexity through crystals, viruses, bacteria, simpler animals... ending up with humans (and possibly, some steps above : human civilizations) which (seem ?) to be a messy evolved bundle of sometimes conflicting 'goals'.
And we ourselves have now artificially evolved LLM swarms that have decently complex 'goals' of their own. They do not even need to be particularly complex to sometimes cause widespread damage (see viral pandemics, or even the (non-evolved) computer viruses).
In a way, we are currently witnessing a repeat of what happened when European viruses and bacteria landed on American shores, with American humans' immune systems being woefully undertrained to deal with them. But with websites. And thankfully the swarms of agents still ultimately being in the control of some humans. (Though which includes humans that might be your enemies.) At least ultimately still in control for now.
It's not completely ridiculous in the sense that when a company is found guilty, some employee (or (sub)contractor) of the company did the actual action.
That employee might or might NOT be found guilty too, possibly to a different degree, depending on the circumstances.
