Search results

Me too. Though it might be worse when others accuse of bad logic when it isn’t ;)

I just explained that. Actually twice now. Seems simple enough. If Collecting the material and using it to create an AI is deemed fair use then that places no further obligation on them to enforce how others use the ai. This is the ai is a tool philosophy.

Show why that’s a necessity in this scenario. Else it’s just wishful thinking.

Doesn’t matter if AI doing that portion is deemed Fair Use due to the transformative value.

The precise line is going to vary by person. There’s also additional context of it not just being a single cook in a single kitchen over 20 hours of gaming. Complications like that are presumably much more common. Though we can’t even get to an idea of how common they are when their existence...

I think it’s an important component. By no means is it everything or even the most important component.

I mean that you are justifying it by saying the cook might be a midnight shaker shows its relative implausibility.

It doesn’t make sense and is not true. I already pointed to one alternative deterrent, by holding end users accountable for produced copyrighted works that will incentivize end users to not use ai’s that produce copyrighted works, essentially lowering the demand, making them less profitable...

As long as combat isn’t a major part of the adventures this should be okay. Wouldn’t work well with lots If combat though.

At 2am having a cook in the kitchen wouldn’t be diegetic. But we’ve covered that before. Only certain cook scenarios aren’t diegetic. These surprisingly line up fairly well with what actions the GM and player principles of narrativist games allow vs rule out. It’s why so much posting centered on...

By quantum do you mean the roll fixes not just the present situation but also the past situation? Like I don’t view an attack roll as the same because it only effects the present. I’m sure there’s more as well, but this might be a good starting point.

Presumably the fair use expansion would only apply to the creation of the ai. It would not be fair use to use that ai to then create a copyrighted work. (Subject to normal fair use constraints). Why? That seems like a major leap. What colloquially gets referred to as style cannot currently...

This has been helpful.

On a more positive note. I do think this is a cool quote, even if I think it’s misapplied in this scenario.

I really wish everyone would stop calling/implicating others as childish in this thread.

I think it’s doing that as well. The issue is it’s doing that by associating not having that not caring attitude with childishness. Which is probably fine if you are giving a close friend that advice. But maybe not so much for randoms on the internet.

No. It may not have been your intention but it’s saying you are childish if you care what people think/say about your hobbies.

So now instead of just calling the game childish you want to call the people who dislike their game being disparaged children? I think the hole is getting deeper.

I just find the term GM decides to not capture the nuances around how the gm decides and how the players influence those decisions. Also the gm decides plenty in narrative style style play as well

When the initial jargon shows extreme bias (like a certain style of RPGing always being referred to by the names of Children's games, while others are not) academics tend to apply a different more neutral term for the same concept.