• 2 Posts
  • 378 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle







  • I read it some time ago before it was hyped up as much, saw it as a fun and interesting read but yeah a little shallow and action movie esque. It is definitely worth reading for the premise if you are a science fiction fan though, that aspect is solid, and I liked how it gives some details about Chinese culture and history that I wasn’t very familiar with.


  • To be fair, in the quoted passage the author is explicitly not referring to Bolt, but asking for explanations of specific, probably small scope issues from non-agentic AI tools.

    Personally even while in school for CS I spent a large number of hours staring at a screen being totally unsure how to proceed to figure out what I didn’t understand, most of it trivial details, or making random edits and hoping it would fix something. I’m sure there are advantages to learning by stumbling around, but I really don’t think it’s the ideal way unless you’re already a very methodically curious person.

    The temptation to jump directly to asking the AI to just do everything for you without yourself understanding it is definitely going to be a stumbling block for people learning, and I’m not sure if there’s a good way around that one, but otoh something available 24/7 that can mostly accurately answer beginner questions in context and as you have worded them seems like it would be crazy helpful, so many times I just wasn’t able to progress until I could get some attention from someone.












  • Or if there is any possible ambiguity in the law. I’m thinking it’s possible this has something to do with the recent weakening of constitutional protections for adult content in the US, where censorship by states of somewhat arbitrarily “obscene” content can be deemed illegal. The quote in the article by Valve seems to reference the concept of offensiveness in Mastercard’s policies:

    Payment processors rejected this, and specifically cited Mastercard’s Rule 5.12.7 and risk to the Mastercard brand. See https://www.mastercard.us/content/dam/public/mastercardcom/na/global-site/documents/mastercard-rules.pdf.

    the rule including the text:

    1. The sale of a product or service, including an image, which is patently offensive and lacks serious artistic value (such as, by way of example and not limitation, images of nonconsensual sexual behavior, sexual exploitation of a minor, nonconsensual mutilation of a person or body part, and bestiality), or any other material that the Corporation deems unacceptable to sell in connection with a Mark.

    So what I’m reading between the lines here is, there is now doubt among the lawyers of credit card companies or the lawyers of their middlemen that these games are for sure legal, and not in violation of obscenity laws that rely on hazy standards of offensiveness.