this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
339 points (98.0% liked)

Games

16800 readers
722 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
339
EA execs say generative AI is "not merely a buzzword for us, it's the very core of our business," then pretend to tell a computer to generate buildings live on stage (www.gamesradar.com)
submitted 2 months ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works
61 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] athairmor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Government protection of technology (patents, copyright) will always hinder them.

Good luck inventing or creating something that a person or corporation with more money won’t immediately copy and then push you out of the market.

Patents and copyright, as originally conceived, are the lower classes only chance to compete.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

In a capitalist context, sure.

The idea of a socialist society is that there isn't a burning need to work beyond what's needed to keep life going. You can focus on art, or writing, or anything else creative. There's no particular need to legally protect what you create, because you're doing it for the pure enjoyment of creativity in the first place. Your livelihood isn't threatened by someone else copying it. If anything, you're delighted that someone else takes enjoyment from it.

And if someone wanted to feed your art to an AI model, that's fine, too. Who cares? That machine can't replace your personal creative drive. This is only a problem now because capitalism forces artists to make money off their art or do something else to make ends meet.

[–] skulbuny@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Then steal from those corporations. It's not hard. Copyright and patents were to benefit the public domain, not anything or anyone else. It does not do that. The public domain has done nothing but perish as more and more "protection" has been applied. Now it is all intellectual "property" to be owned and measured and controlled and regulated, unless you opt out of it with open source.

We have tools like the GPL and AGPL. Corporations hate those. Turns out when you start giving away and "taking", everyone benefits. Open source hasn't made the world worse the more it's been growing — maybe choosing to forgo most protections of copyright and IP is actually good. Maybe.