Search results

I think we are in agreement? In a game with light story investment, death or any of the other catastrophes can still mean an interruption of play. When an encounter can run for hours, an early death means being unengaged for hours. In a game with heavy story investment, the consequence is an...

Well, “stop playing”, as I’ve seen it, means being taken out of play for anywhere from an hour or for the rest of the evening. That depending on the players speed at creating a new character and the ability of the GM to put the new player into play. ”Stop playing” also has meant returning to...

Maybe. But, this seems a system problem. When a system permits random deaths, and if a random death can upset a night of activity, I place blame on the system. A system which contains the possibility of large mishaps should have mechanisms to keep players in the game. This is a problem of...

Ah, the deception (of Eddie) seems more a self-deception. Certainly, Vincent is presenting false information. But Vincent is the opponent. Eddie should not trust any information provided by Vincent. It's not Vincent's problem that Eddie is looking for a different sort of game. (Note: my...

I'm not sure use of the term "illusionism" helps the discussion. Why not describe what the GM is doing directly: Removing player agency. Also, the example of "The Color of Money" is not on point. While Eddie was deceived, that was more because he misunderstands the nature of the game...

I expect that simple transformations create works that are clearly derivative, and are, without controversy, not fair use of the original art. I thought that computer generated art went very far beyond simple transformative techniques. TomB

Yeah. That seems to be where the current debate is centered.

They were compensated for allowing specific use of their content. The question is not whether there was any compensation. The question is were they compensated for their content being used to train an AI. I imagine that common crawls doesn’t train AIs to create art. The commons crawls use...

For anyone in Berkeley on 26-April-2023: “Generative AI Meets Copyright” - Pamela Samuelson https://www.eventbrite.com/e/generative-ai-meets-copyright-pamela-samuelson-tickets-588117313717 Ms. Samuelson is an excellent resource for explaining legal issues relating to copyrights. In...

1) Operating and using Pinterest, as Pinterest defines itself as a service, seems in no way to involve AI generated art. 2) You can only grant usage rights to content that is yours, and you must put it on Pinterest to grant them rights. 3) My understand (from the lengthy OGL discussion...

Hmm, this is more an “are computers making actual” question than an “is training ai fair use” question. I think you are dodging the question by eliding from the second to the first. If and when a trained AI could produce art, would using art to train the AI be fair use? TomB

As a follow up: I think keeping these two questions separate is important: 1) Is what computers produce art? is It very good? Poor? Can it evoke genuine responses from people interacting with it? 2) Is using art as training data a fair use? Must compensation be provided for such use? TomB

So … the question here is whether using an image in training data is fair use. Generally, looking at another’s work to get ideas is fair use. Making a direct copy is not. Then, is training from a work like a person looking over a work, or is it more like making a photocopy? I would tend to...

Additional text omitted. This is very probably false, while it may be a current limitation. Indeed, the example of AlphaGo, which did initially train on the historical go record, but then was retrained entirely by playing itself, provides a counter factual. I suspect hindrances to AI art are...

Additional text omitted. A change of process does not conclusively change the result. I think a much deeper analysis and discussion are necessary. Certainly, computers process information differently than biological creatures. I rather don’t think that is a sufficient reason to categorically...

Bold added by me. This, I think, is highly debatable. Perhaps a discussion for another thread. TomB

Oh! I was commenting on whether I thought these were objects, not whether they could be repaired. Repair requires an undamaged state. I agree that that is not well defined for an iceberg. (But what if I carve a staircase in a section of ice of the iceberg, and one of the steps Is chipped...

Ice on a lake, no. But an iceberg, yes. Frozen ice on a birdbath, yes. An ice cube, yes. A snowflake, yes. A layer of snow on a yard, no. A snowball, yes. I don’t this is a great example. Ice is approximately a continuous material, like water, air, or sand, and one has the ambiguity of...

And we run into the problem of actual physics vs use of language in physically imprecise ways. This is not unique to the mending spell. Let's modify the example: A single 10 yard ball of yarn (which fits in less than a 1' cube) is used to create a small (less than 1' square) cloth. During...

Yeah, I was thinking that, but it's only the initial casting of the spell that cares about the target's intelligence. I don't see any restriction on stunned which prevents a creation with an intelligence of 1-2 from being stunned. TomB