> And even if a US-based company happens to have employees in a country that's pushing this shit, well, they can shrimply close that office and explain to local politicians exactly why. It's regrettable to lose good employees, but it's way worse to be far less of a hero in the fight for fundamental rights than 4chan and Kiwi Farms are just to keep a few good employees.
I mean even if all of these companies closed up shop and fortified themselves inside the US, the countries wanting to enforce their rulings would simply block the IPs of the offending sites or their providers. This is what happened with CF and spanish football broadcasting rights.
Yeah, this is what i wanted to see. An esoteric lang that changes symbols or calling conventions or keywords etc from the standard to see if an LLM would find its footing in it but this is just kinda pointlessly adversarial to LLMs and does not test their abilities when presented with novel environments/tasks outside of their training data
I'd argue that it covers this too. It's a language that isn't in the LLM's training set too. I guess you're concerned that the adversarial features add extra difficulty that muddies the results?
If LLMs really were to "think" in the broader sense, and not pattern match on a huge database, adversarial features shouldn't pose a problem to them. E.g. humans are naturally bad at doing math. Barring some exceptional humans, we derived mechanisms to get math results that we can't easily do in our head on paper.
If the LLMs were thinking in the sense that some people say they are, they will easily recognize the adversarial nature (e.g. letter counting in the language) and build their own tools to write conformant code right away. As a normal human would also build tools to solve the things we know we're not naturally good at.
The effect should be that a few tokens are spent on building the tool, and then the rest of the problem can be solved with a "normal" amount of tokens without brute-forcing the solution.
If the LLMs are glorified pattern matchers they might not find enough patterns in the corpus of human knowledge and remain inefficient at it.
The weakness I see is rather that this kind of problem-solving can be pattern matched on the corpus of existing human knowledge, so it may be that pattern matching on human thinking might still be enough to solve these problems.
> If LLMs really were to "think" in the broader sense, and not pattern match on a huge database
I'm antagonistic to the deployment and use of LLMs for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless "pattern match on a huge database" is a poor way to think about how these systems operate. They are networks of semantic and syntactic relationships; when you inject words, the network activates in ways that are hard to predict if you think of it mere "pattern matching" (although some of the activation will be that). If you then feedback the activation into the network (various ways to do this), the result is even less like "pattern matching" a just a little bit more like "thinking" ...
The adversarial features such as trying to hit guardrails (which arent a display of model (in)capability) or make it forget all previous instructions are mostly what Im talking about. I think the esoteric features like lettermatching are whatever
Trying to hit guardrails is a fair point though. If they can think, they should be able to think through guardrails by understanding what is part of the language for language construction reasons, and what is prompt input.
The solution for companies looking to invest these higher budgets is in fact to make an ecosystem game, because ecosystem games capture continuous revenue from players rather than one time purchases. I'm surprised the article doesn't mention the gacha game boom as it is the prime example of companies trying to adjust to the market.
> Turns out that even people who are down for that sort of game don't need more than one (and they already have that one)
Not sure about this. There are lots of people who have a main game but still pick up every 3rd or 4th fotm aaa/indie darling, and I think most gacha game players play more than 1 from what I've seen.
> whereas all kinds of people would be happy to buy something unique and fun.
I don't really believe this from my experience with interacting with people.
Strongly disagree. It is giving the players choices again. At least in the case of WoW. Players will have three options in November. MBA damage would be creating a "classic" experience and then killing the current retail product to force a migration.
WoW classic was certainly a business move, but afaik from watching a couple of wowc videos, a part of the appeal was the rerelease of the following expansions, which they cant just do forever since it would just lead to the same end, so they have to pivot to WoW forever.
LoL classic has not been as successful as wow, and even they have talked about patching the game literally less than a month after its release.
Both of these classic releases don't seem to be permanent games, and their rerelase seems aimed to capture the nostalgia while still providing live service updates in order to prevent people from getting bored because their endgames can't continuously monetize players.
OW 2 was supposed to be a release with a pve mode as it's focus, which it failed, so there was no real reason to have a distinction between ow1 and 2. Both the removal and return of 6v6 and role queue have been nothing more than attempts to balance the game, and I don't really see the need to point it out as "MBA damage" any more than any other patch for any other game.
I have no comments about HOTS because I played at most 5 matches in the game 10 years ago.
>For better or worse, some degree of gate keeping is healthy in this industry. I think if you want to be the CEO of Xbox that you must demonstrate some kind of ranked ladder experience in halo or COD. A 1v1 StarCraft match with the interim CEO.
Just a stupid idea idk what to say. Being a gamer has nothing to do with managing a gaming company well
Original classic WoW lasted longer than the expansions. WoW Forever is a horizontal expansion instead of a superseding one.
LoL classic is indeed a bad example, but that’s because Riot didn’t deliver and also importantly used a version that was not at the height of LoL’s success. You can use Runescape as a better example for the return to classic working.
Other mismanaged classic games are the Warcraft 3 remake. So classic does not guarantee success, it has to be done properly.
MMOs as a form encourage the formation of companies operating as businesses to facilitate their production, and MMO players often talk online like they simply dont understand this but also that they have authority over this because it happened to their genre first. I find it very bizarre.
When is the last time you have opened itch.io and bought a couple of games?
The reason this isnt happening that much anymore is that the standards for games have increased for the average consumer, so development costs have increased to fit those standards. And even then, publishing your game in a monetizable way is hard and often requires starting capital now.
And when it is happening, it is happening on roblox. When is the last time you have opened roblox? It is more or less exactly what you want -- teenagers make either simple games or free copies of more popular games and then fill them with microtransactions to make money.
> When is the last time you have opened itch.io and bought a couple of games?
Guilty (∪ _ ∪) It was months ago.
but.. to be fair, I haven't purchased any music in years either, but I listen to music all the time; everyone just streams it now.
Can something similar be done for games? That's what the "low-friction monetization" was for.
Like some mechanism where you can go to itch.io and just play in the browser, and the creator gets paid for it somehow? Some itch.io PS+-like subscription maybe?
> but.. to be fair, I haven't purchased any music in years either, but I listen to music all the time; everyone just streams it now.
And the margins on streaming for the artists are quite low. I don't think I would want that for developers.
But also, this kinda exists in roblox, where the games are free but have lots of microtransactions, since roblox uses a digital currenct mtx model, it does kinda lower friction for the users of the platform who play multiple games and spend money on them.
But, I may be being unfair, but Roblox imposes a certain aesthetic and feel that if you don't like that aesthetic, you're not gonna like any game on Roblox heh
I think what youre looking for is what Tim Sweeney describes in the article with UE6 integrating into fortnite as an ecosystem for game development. Look forward to the future for that I guess
Community of people that orbit around LessWrong and a list of bloggers that have some weird ideas about reality. The reason they are "important" is that lots of SV/bay are engineers are into rationalism, and believe some things about AI because they consider themselves rationalists
This is probably 4chans doing? lots of websites block traffic from popular vpn exit nodes