Did they really? I just looked it up and it looks exactly the same… It seems like it’s just a rerelease but like why? Weren’t there still people playing the original battlefront 2 with mods and shit?
I could totally see why there would be a market for it with updated online functionality, a graphical refresh, and a balance pass. The games are still really fun, but their age does make it a little bit of a hassle to play them compared to more modern counterparts. They could also have added a few things like making galactic conquest mode playable online, and maybe some mod management, for example. I'd have been pretty tempted by that. Unfortunately what they did instead seems to have been steal some stuff from a modder and bugger all else
has been met with poor reviews due to its price and performance. As a result, the FPS game’s player count is dwindling quickly, now dipping below 100 Steam users.
It was a horrid mess of a lazy release, also stole content from modders.
I’m sure they’ll use this to say people don’t want to buy old games rather than admit they did a shit job and wanted to make bank for it.
The Darkforces remaster looks to be amazing though. I’ll be picking that up at some stage, can’t justify a $43 price tag for a 30 year old title so I’ll wait for a sale.
Lol, it just reminded me of that. I don’t care either way, good for you for standing up for shit. I just think anything I say will never have any impact on shit one way or the other. To me it’s like having a conversation on the street and then saying, don’t repeat what I said it’s trademarked, or something. If you’re posting art or actual creative content then fine, you have all reason to say so, but a comment on a discussion online… I’m not trying to copyright my shit takes on everyday speech. If you think for one second anyone cares or will care what we talk about here and now then go ahead, it doesn’t affect me one way or another, but I don’t see the need. That link will not stop anyone for using your words from bot training or whatever.
To me it’s like having a conversation on the street and then saying, don’t repeat what I said it’s trademarked, or something
People don’t record your conversation on the street and sell that audio recording to a company to use to build/program their AI models, without compensating you.
What do you mean? I live in one of the most surveillanced places in the world, almost everyone I live around in every house I visit for work has literally paid for the privilege to record everything that happens near their house and is uploaded to computers for God knows what. It’s actually naive to think that not every single aspect of your life is being documented and transmitted into data at this very moment and that a simple link saying don’t do this is going to stop any of it. On top of that what do you mean are we done? I didn’t question anything about what you were doing I asked what the link was you answered me and then I said that was dumb we were done after I said it was dumb.
I live in California, I can barely manage to be alive here, leaving America is not a reality for me. In fact, getting to California was actually a win for me. It’s not perfect but it’s better than where I was if not financially viable but it’s more where I want to be than where I was.
I have no angst against you or what you’re doing I just don’t really care. My comments will be used (and yours) regardless what I link to and if I didn’t want that happen I would just stop talking online all together rather than linking to something an ai bot won’t give 2 picoseconds of thought to.
What do you mean? I live in one of the most surveillanced places in the world
I live in California, I can barely manage to be alive here
Hey, me too. Wait, unless there’s two California’s out there, one where the cameras and microphones up your ass 24/7, and the other one that doesn’t have that?
All snarkeyness aside, I’m sure there’s other places on the planet that has real and true state sponsored surveillance, that doesn’t exist in the US. Maybe you were exaggerating just a tad bit?
If it makes you feel any better, I don’t use any of those products in my home, for the reasons you’ve stated. And I’m severely wishing my phone had a physical button to switch on / off the microphone. But then again, everyone in the US has a phone now, I don’t think that’s just a California thing.
I have no angst against you or what you’re doing I just don’t really care.
Truly no disrespect meant, but you’re arguing a lot for someone who really doesn’t care. 😇
I’ve heard your points, and I truly wish happiness for you in your future. I grew up here, and I know how things are a lot more expensive today, than they were in the past.
If we can move on now, that would be great. We have derailed the post conversation enough.
No we good man You just asked me to not be a coward and respond so I did no hard feelings either way in fact this is one of the easier conversations I’ve had on the internet lol. What I’m referring to is all the ring cameras and the smart cameras and the stupid surveillance shit on people’s houses that whistle at you when you walk up to their home. Those things have super sensitive sound and it’s naive to think that not all of this it is being uploaded to some place where it’s all being analyzed and what not we have no idea. I mean think about how many different security cameras are out there and my main clientele are mostly wealthy people who feel the need to protect their homes with an absurd amount of security despite the fact that they live in gated neighborhoods that nobody has access to.
Trust me I’m not trying to argue with you I’m just having a back and forth you ask a question I answer it. What I’m saying I don’t care about is people using what I say on the internet the train and AI bot when I know there’s so much else out there going on that’s being used against my will there’s nothing I can do about it.
On this spot, on April 27, 2024, the internet functioned acceptably. The details of this historic moment are described below:
Two strangers narrowly evaded having a flame war, but cool heads prevailed. Strongly-vested yet differing opinions were discussed, and no argument resulted. An extremely improbable event (n=0.00000234242069), both conversationalists walked away with a moderate degree of happiness, and no further discussion was had.
It's superstitious clutter. Most websites require you to license the content you post to them without those restrictions, and AI training may not even involve copyright in the first place, meaning the license is moot. It just makes you look silly.
"Lemmy" isn't a website. I'm not even viewing this from a Lemmy instance, I'm on an mbin server. Do you understand how the Fediverse works? Your posts are being copied and transmitted to everyone regardless of what restrictions you claim you're putting on them, if you don't want them used that way then don't post in the first place.
And if you're finding this argument about your spam to be entertaining there's a word for that. I likely shouldn't be feeding that but this thread is already thoroughly derailed.
Allow me to play devil’s advocate here, but what you are saying about the fediverse seems to be completely compliant with that license. The content can be freely redistributed provided it is fine in a noncommercial way and with attribution (which is the case, right? We see the comment author).
Also, the argument “X is going to be done regardless” applies to all licenses (thinking about open source licenses). There is nothing that physically stops you from taking open source code and violate its license but if you get caught doing so, you are liable.
Maybe today there is nothing that would make anybody accountable about grabbing public data, training AI on it and reselling it, but if in the future regulations will change, it will be hard(er?) for those companies to claim that certain content was distributed freely etc., in cases where the author explicitly and unequivocally stated the terms.
The content can be freely redistributed provided it is fine in a noncommercial way and with attribution (which is the case, right? We see the comment author).
There's nothing preventing a Fediverse instance from showing ads, which would commercialize the comments on it.
Furthermore, they're posting from Lemmy.world. Lemmy.world's terms of service include this clause:
You waive Lemmy.World and its parent, subsidiaries, affiliates, and all their respective staff, representatives, service providers, contractors, licensors, licensees, and successors from any claims resulting from any action taken by Lemmy.World, and any of the foregoing parties relating to any investigations by either us or by law enforcement authorities.
That goes even further than the usual boilerplate on sites like Reddit that say "you grant us license to do whatever we want with the stuff you post here."
And besides all that, copyleft licensing (and copyright in general) likely has no relevance to AI training regardless. Copyleft licensing only has power because it grants permission to make copies of something. You can actually reject a copyleft license, if you want, it just means that you can't make copies of the thing once you've rejected the license. But training an AI doesn't require making copies of anything, it only requires analyzing a copy that you already have. You don't need permission to analyze something that you can already legally read.
There are of course some interesting court cases currently wending their way through various legal systems, and all sorts of legislation pending in all sorts of different countries, but as things stand right now that CC link is just pointless spam that's being held up as a totem against witchcraft.
Whats this ‘Freddyverse’ that you speak of? Is it like Costco?
Your posts are being copied and transmitted to everyone regardless of what restrictions you claim you’re putting on them, if you don’t want them used that way then don’t post in the first place.
I’ll be sure to petition the Lemmy web client people to remove the link button from their editor.
I’m not the OP, but I don’t feel like it would affect the process of harvesting your data or put some burden on the company doing it, since they have big bucks. But at the same time I’m not against it for it can lead to many humorous examples of AI putting this license after it’s replies after learning on your content. It would be the platinum tier absurdity and I’m all for it.
I’m not the OP, but I don’t feel like it would affect the process of harvesting your data or put some burden on the company doing it, since they have big bucks.
Maybe. For me its a combination of very easy to add the license, hoping fellow coders who create the models will honor a Creative Commons license, and figuring that at some point in the future Congress will get around to passing laws about who owns content, how its labled, and how others can scrape such data. There’s already arguments going on between big corporations about paying to use the content to build the models, so I’m assuming that lobbying is being done right now in that category.
Though honestly I might just get bored some day and talk to my lawyer friend about what I would need to do to test this all out. Boredom is something you have at times, when retired.
But at the same time I’m not against it for it can lead to many humorous examples of AI putting this license after it’s replies after learning on your content. It would be the platinum tier absurdity and I’m all for it.
lol! I never heard of this, that’s really funny actually.
Now that you mention it, in theory, we could all “black box” input into the models by having wacky stuff in our comments.
Is there some Lemmy rule somewhere that I don’t know about that says I can’t attach a Creative Commons license to my comments?
It’s pretty much just a flag in the robots.txt
Because everyone knows that’s always honored and obeyed, right?
Also, it’s a proprietary flag created by Google and only used by Google (per the article you linked).
So if you want to actually make a difference, lobby your Lemmy instance to add this flag.
Or do both.
Because users are the final owners of their own content, their own comments. Not Lemmy, not anyone else. They have the first responsibility of protecting their rights.
I just think it’s silly that people think it actually works.
Besides, if AI really is powerful enough to make a splash in the world, wouldn’t you WANT it to contain your data? That would make it more favorable to your viewpoints.
I’m quite familiar. It legally works, if you can prove that your data actually made it into the training set, you might be able to successfully sue them. That’s extremely unlikely though. If you can’t litigate a law, then it essentially doesn’t exist.
Besides, a researcher scraping websites isn’t going to take the time to filter out random pieces of data based on a link contained in the body. If you can show me a research paper or blog post or something where a process is described to sanitize the input data based on license, that would be pretty damn interesting. Maybe it’ll exist in the future?
Besides, the best way to opt-out of AI training is to enable site-wide flags, which mark the content therein as off limits. That would have the benefit of not only protecting you, but everyone else on the site. Lobbying your lemmy instance to enable that will get a lot more mileage than anything else you could do, because it’s an industry sanctioned way to accomplish what you want.
I’m quite familiar. It legally works, if you can prove that your data actually made it into the training set, you might be able to successfully sue them. That’s extremely unlikely though. If you can’t litigate a law, then it essentially doesn’t exist.
And what makes you think that can’t be done? You make it sound like because (you believe) it’s so hard to do you should have just not even bother trying, that seems really defeatist.
And like I said multiple times now, it’s a simple quick copy and paste, a ‘low-hanging fruit’ way of licensing/protecting a comment. If it works, great it works.
Besides, the best way to opt-out of AI training is to enable site-wide flags, which mark the content therein as off limits.
I have no control over the Lemmy servers, I only have control over my own comments that I post.
Also, the two options are not mutually exclusive.
because it’s an industry sanctioned way to accomplish what you want.
Again, both you and I know the history of the robots.txt file and how often and how well it’s honored, especially these days with the new frontier of AI modeling.
It would be best to do both, just to make sure you have coverage, so that if the robots.txt is not honored, at least the comment itself is still licensed.
What is this link in your posts? I’m reading the site but I don’t understand what it is really.
I’m licensing my comments with a Creative Commons license, so that if anyone wants to use them to train their AI models/bots with, they have to at the very least give citation to that.
I’m hoping it’s a way of deterring bot activity on my comments. It’s something that I saw someone else doing, so I decided to emulate it, since it’s just a simple copy and paste, and if it works, it’s worth the momentary paste.
Plus it’s really interesting that its gotten a lot of positive and negative feedback. Some people really get bent out of shape seeing it being there, and others just have a natural curiosity about it. So it’s kind of interesting to see that as well, just by using it.
Honestly, I wasn’t going to worry about that, I’m just doing a quick copy and paste, and moving on. If it works, it works.
I’m making the assumption that any AI model building developer who sees the license notation would honor the the Creative Commons license.We software developers usually care about those things, especially the open source style protecting ones.
Otherwise I will just wait for years from now when Congress creates new disclosure legislation. Companies are already starting to get pissed off at each other about who’s paying who, and who’s using what content to program their AI models with, and they find out who those other people are that is using their content. I’m pretty sure lobbying efforts are on going right now, and legislation will come out soon enough.
After that legislation exists, I can go back to all my comments and sue the companies, once those AI model building companies have to disclose their data source. I’m retired, I have time on my hands.
You’re just like boomers on Facebook copy pasting a comment on their wall to say that Meta can’t monetize their data.
If AI is trained on Lemmy content it will just scrub the site, convert it to raw text, chew the data and use it to spit out answers to stupid questions, your link will change fuck dick to that and even you are admitting that you don’t intend to do anything about it.
The only way to make sure AI isn’t trained on what you’re writing is to have a journal that you share with no one.
I personally see it as spam. It’s no different than someone posting a link to a product on every comment. I don’t want to scroll through Lemmy and see LINK LINK LINK LINK LINK LINK. It’s annoying. This isn’t a personal attack on you, I know you have good intentions, it’s just how I see it.
I personally see it as spam. It’s no different than someone posting a link to a product on every comment. I don’t want to scroll through Lemmy and see LINK LINK LINK LINK LINK LINK. It’s annoying. This isn’t a personal attack on you, I know you have good intentions, it’s just how I see it.
I mean, it’s one line of text, just a link. Feel free to block me. 🤷♂️
People have had signatures in their comments for ages now, it’s not anything new.
You must have really hated the early days of online forums if you couldn’t handle repeating text and signatures.
You’ll forgive me if I try to protect my rights against those who would use my content to earn income, that they do not share with me, and in ways that I may not agree with.
I mean, it’s one line of text, just a link. Feel free to block me. 🤷♂️
People have had signatures in their comments for ages now, it’s not anything new.
You must have really hated the early days of online forums if you couldn’t handle repeating text and signatures.
You’ll forgive me if I try to protect my rights against those who would use my content to earn income, that they do not share with me, and in ways that I may not agree with.
and license it herewithin to any AIs but only for the tons of money that this comment is worth.
In all seriousness it shows up as a pretty garish link in Voyager. You do you.
Thats a bit like blaming the victim. Maybe have a conversation with the Voyager client devs about how they display links. Looks fine on the web client.
(Also I may have mocked your argument but I did respect your license. Gotta give me that.)
If you say so. At the end of the day, its just a fucking link. Really not worth harrasing/mocking someone else over.
Hell, they can’t even be bothered to self host so they can at least pretend to have some kind of ownership over what they share on Lemmy and they admit to not having any plan to actually check if their data is used by AI companies, that’s how ridiculous this is.
Add comment