What we are seeing is why we should not support closed models. The companies like OpenAI and Anthropic can change the rules of usage at any time they like and for any reason. Today it’s reverse engineering. Tomorrow who knows what.
There was no official ruling from the courts that forced them to do this. This was just something they didn’t like.
Remember that these are the companies that gave millions to Trump
as a bribefor the inauguration.That’s so funny that the thing that recreates stolen content is being modified not to do it, it seems almost existential. Wouldn’t that be one less reason to use LLMs at all? Good for Antrhopic I guess, but I’m sure they’ll let people with more money do it or something.
The pagiarism machine is blocking this? Feels like a shitty double standard.
Oh it absolutely is a double standard
This is the only take.
I’m a game designer, and the intent here is good. However, as outlined, there’s legitimate reasons to not block this sort of work. Additionally, game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, for good reason. Mechanics are generally fair game, but the treatment around them has copyrighted assets. I don’t want an ecosystem where game mechanics were copyrighted.
game mechanics cannot be copyrighted
But patented.
You can usually patent hardware patterns. It’s very difficult to be successful in court about gameplay mechanics themselves. Nintendo lost their lawsuits.
I’m not arguing that (and know about the Palworld case off course). What I argue is, that most companies big or small want to avoid going to court, and fight (possibly years) over patents. Or avoid getting sued if they use patented mechanics. Just like with the situation of emulators, it doesn’t matter if the developers are right or wrong, they fear going to court against Nintendo.
Now in case of Palword I have to say, bravo. Wish more had the courage (and money!) to fight Nintendo. It would make gaming better, because I hate game mechanics being patented.
To be fair to you, they needed a lot of resources to fight. They hit it big, which caught Nintendo’s attention. It’s suffering from success, but I agree broadly.
I think the parenting is very controversial and not altogether enforceable. I don’t know of anything that went to court over it, most of the patents are incredibly vague.
Nintendo famously sued Palworld over throwing balls to capture monsters and using them in battle. They had a lot of claims thrown out but the suit is still ongoing apparently.
Japans laws are a lot more intense about this. The only reason this happened is because both companies were Japanese, and most of it was still thrown out.
Exactly why this is still a problem. There are patents of game mechanics that prevented other devs to implement them, because they do not want to go to court or fear they could lose in a court. The Nemesis system is such an example often brought up in discussions like these. Or the ability to catch a Pokemon with the Pokeball in the way Nintendo does, and riding/flying with a monster are also patented. And on that note, I think Nintendo lost the case with the riding or with the catch mechanic, I don’t remember details.
Game mechanics being patented is enforceable as far as I know, but only if the patent is in that country and is valid (validity can change even after it was granted, but that is not common). The point is, if valid or not, most companies just stop using those game mechanics out of fear. And that still holding back innovation.
The Nemesis system from the Shadow of Mordor games is an another famously patented mechanic.
Like if a company tried to copyright a left click… wait, one of them tried this, didn’t they?
Patent, not copyright.
A patent is protection of a behaviour, or technology, or operation, that is unique. It has specific criteria to ensure uniqueness. Say, you patent a mouse trap - the behaviour/operation has to be unique. If it’s the standard “lever with bait activates a spring loaded arm, capturing the rodent” type, no matter how you shine it up, it won’t pass the uniqueness test, therefore not be granted its own patent.
A copyright applies to pretty much anything you can write. I could copyright this comment, for example (but then run into the issue of publishing it publicly on social media, thus needing to grant the right of reproduction to Lemmy/Mbin/etc. instances, so let’s not get into that discussion). It doesn’t have to be unique as long as you can prove you’ve come up with it originally. Technically, two writers could come up with the same book, and as long as they have evidence of writing it individually, both could get the copyright.
So overall, you could protect the functionality of left click via a patent (something along the lines of “operation of a digital computer or equivalent using a two-or-more-button handheld positioning peripheral” that covers pretty much any mice and any device you can connect a mouse to), but it would expire quickly (IIRC 20 years), unlike a copyright does (which is usually author’s death + 70 years, unless author has a continued rights holder set up after the death, or prior to their death commit their work to the public domain).
Its no where near the best model(s) for it so its kinda funny. “Look how ethical we are” haha.
The machines of the oligarchs are not neutral to the oligarchy.
The majority are not in a position to understand that.
This is as dangerous, and more imminent, than runaway AGI.
The game companies probably paid them to block.
More likely threaten with legal action
That is more plausible, agreed.
(Knee) JERKS reaction by Anthro-paralytic
I mean, good luck actually enforcing that
Horrifying that not a single commenter mentioned Claude Mythos itself has been leaked for months, and Anthropic’s policy update does squat to deter Epic & Microsoft’s grift.
