But Dark Souls also shows just how limited the vocabulary and grammar has to be to prevent abuse. And even then you’ll still see people think up workarounds. Or, in the words of many a Dark Souls player, “try finger but hole”
Look at the example in the article, which is a fairly typical citation: While you can replicate the title, how do you propose to retroactively publish a paper in a specific journal, in a specific volume, on a specific set of pages, potentially years in the past?
Moreover, citations are most commonly for other people's work. And since you would be more likely to catch fake citations for your own work, the proportion of those is probably greater for fake citations.
So the people who would have to accomplish this, would be an entirely different set of people than the authors who published the fake citation. These people may not even be working together regularly, but you would need to involve every named author, as journals do check this.
And what would their motivation be, to publish based on a title that is potentially nonsense? A single citation that may not even be picked up due to the inescapable differences between the fake and post-hoc real citation?
I can't imagine that anyone would find that worthwhile
Looking at the log, it seems like the author gives each release a name. “Epstein files” is just the latest out of a number of questionable names, the previous one being “Maduro”:
Going by the Steam hardware survey, 3/4 of Linux users were not using Steam Decks when they got polled. So I’m not sure if a console-esque device is actually required. A large part of the reason why Linux usage is growing, is probably that it mostly just works these days
This is a huge loss for the visual novel community.
Not just the loss of the person, but also the loss of the developer who was developing and maintaining what is probably the single most important resource for the community.
uv replaces pip (and venv, and pipx, and more), not conda. If you want a uv-equivalent that replaces conda, then look at pixi: https://pixi.prefix.dev/
If all you are installing using conda is pypi packages and different versions of Python, then sure, uv is a fine replacement. I use it for that as well. But if you are using other conda/conda-forge/bioconda packages, then uv isn't a replacement since it cannot install those. However, Pixi can replace conda for that use-case and it's about as fast as uv since it uses uv's dependency resolution code
> And it's used to power effect where you might not expect it (Stardew Valley mines).
Apparently Stardew Valley's mines are not procedurally generated, but rather hand-crafted. Per their recent 10 year anniversary video, the developer did try to implement procedural generation for the mines, but ended up scrapping it:
That’s not the same procedural generation as GPT or diffusion and you know it.
It’s not even in the same ballpark as Elite, NMS, terraria, or Minecraft.
The levels are all hand drawn, not generated by an algorithm, even if they’re shuffled. Eric Barone, the developer, has publicly said as much. Are you calling him a liar?
It’s like the difference between sudoku/crossword and conways game of life
Honestly, just white knighting for one of my favorite developers and biggest inspirations.
Someone lying about the pseudo randomization of the hand drawn efforts to make it seem entirely algorithmically generated rubs me really wrong, especially when that dev has publicly broadcast the reasoning of the decision to eschew procedurally generated mines.
I think that's what I was confused about: I don't see the lie in the comments above. optionalsquid said "[...]did try to implement procedural generation for the mines, but ended up scrapping it"
bombcar said "They're quasi-generated with random elements and fixed elements - similarly to early Diablo procedural generation." (which is true - you confirmed as much in the very next comment - "The levels are all hand drawn, not generated by an algorithm, even if they’re shuffled.". That's all early Diablo was doing.)
"Quasi-generated" seems like an appropriate descriptor here - stringing together level building blocks algorithmically is still "generating" a level in a sense. You're right - it's not correct to say that they were generated in the same way that an LLM generates things, but a) nobody claimed that and b) there is an undeniable element of procedural generation here.
> The logistics operation involved in distributing codes is also very expensive and inflexible. You may need to authenticate payments a dozen times in an hour one day, when you are on a farmers market which doesn't take card payments or you are out dining with friends, and another day not at all.
Neither of the scenarios you describe would require you to authenticate using MitID: Peer-to-peer payments in Denmark are typically done using the app MobilePay, which only requires MitID authentication during setup. And you never need MitID authentication when paying in person, at most you'll need your card's pin-code
Two of the three examples listed in the article appear to involve real children:
> A selfie uploaded by a schoolgirl was undressed by Grok, turning a “before school selfie” into an image of her in a bikini. As of January 15th this post was still live on X. ... Four images depicting child actors.
Calling nearly naked, non consensual imagery of real children “not CSAM” is a dangerous avenue to follow. For a child, this can easily lead to bullying, substantiate rumors that are otherwise false, or normalize their unwilling participation in sexual activity.
I think you may be coming to this view from the approach that this is just the AI using imagination/hallucination so it’s “art”, but a better approach would be to treat it like a real photo taken secretly because absent overt labeling of its AI origins that is exactly how the world will treat it.
I disagree. If we solve this problem, we’ll also solve the more serious “real” problem.
The only distraction comes from people saying this is okay, and those people are bound to always practice a motte and bailey argument style to hide the fact that they are generally okay with CSAM.
The same people who defended “creep shots” and “family nudism photos” are now defending GrokAi.
Choosing not to counter them, merely allows them to normalize grey areas so they can use them to freely seek association with others with more obscene and obviously illegal content.
reply