When people refer to AI as a tool, they mean as a part of the drawing/rendering workflow, not the whole. If you went through the entire design workflow without the AI, you can take full ownership over that. That part still takes your skill. But if the AI still builds most if not all of the image, you can't really claim ownership over the image, since from that point, the AI makes (basically) all of the skillful decisions.

Only if you start being a part of actively shaping the drawing, like providing a sufficiently original base image or other advanced original input, drawing over or recomposing the image afterwards, you can get something you were actually a part of it. That's the (closer) equivalent of an artists brush. The artist uses and applies the brush in a way to make something that becomes bigger than it's parts. Using AI for the full image would be equivalent to applying a stamp. It can be a very pretty stamp, but something else made it.

Saying "I made this", isn't false per se, but the omission of "by having the AI draw my design." does drastically change the perception to the point it's deceptive. It's just about being honest. If you made a cool design, stick to taking credit for the design. At the end of the day, not being a part of putting the design into a drawing is not uncommon, but certainly better than being deceptive, even if some people may dislike the AI use. Those people will hate you all the more for lying by omission over it if that was an issue for them, and it can certainly also draw unhappy responses from others who would be fine if you told them honestly.

EDIT: Typo

Google can still automatically mark your message as spam if enough people mark it as such or you trigger spam identification too often (this can happen if you send frequent test emails with not much in them) - it's not neccesarily an attack on you. But plenty of spammers will send perfectly well verified emails today, so you are just caught in the crossfire.

Try sending a gmail account you still have access to a couple of genuine looking mails (eg. At least a paragraph of legible text and with a signature), then marking the messages as not spam. That worked for me. Even after that though, one line messages can still trigger the spam detection.

I think you're misunderstanding them. They specifically mentioned SEO recipe sites, which are websites dedicated to being ranked highest on search engines, which typically means they don't correlate with recipe quality, but with clickability (or whatever the algorithms like today). There's a lot of them, so calling them spam isn't necessarily wrong. Lots of people search for recipes, so it's bound to attract it.

They just seem to be cautioning that the LLM might pull from bogus sources since there's not really a straightforward benchmark for a good recipe that it might reference, and that you have to remember you're using a tool. Your own intelligence is the real test. Which isn't bad advice when dealing with AI output, but I think you already got that. I would say, don't be baited into the idea that everyone is some hardcore AI hater because they are skeptical, there are certainly some, but assuming it alienates the many people that have surprisingly nuanced takes.

Did you respond to the wrong person? EDIT: Okay, you're responding elsewhere, so you're just not going to respond to leaving a nonsensical but also kind of vile comment? Crazy, considering I was mostly agreeing with you, other than saying you shouldn't accept the propagandized idea that people are or should be doing something to make up for some perceived guilt. Rather than doing it to empower themselves and foster collective action.

I don't think you should think about it in terms of blame, I think that's a big part of the propaganda. Seeding of anger, frustration, and apathy. Rather than allowing empowerment, organizing, and hope.

Blame should only be reserved for those that act with careless disregard. And doing things that are good for the environment shouldn't be seen as 'paying back'. You are actively doing more than you should and letting your actions speak louder than your words. And those actions can (and should) be part of building the collective that will force those truly responsible from stopping.

That's my one wish for lists like OP posted. It should always contain that the only lasting change is organizing.

While it's good to empathize with people receiving death threats, I would caution against it when the person claiming death threats is not doing so in good faith. That entire statement is directly followed up by implying that db0 is systematically sending people death threats, which is a massive accusation without providing any evidence for that. Which sadly means, acknowledging the threats means implicitly accepting that premise. It's a loaded question, and a common tactic by cornered scumbags to silence criticism.

Louis Rossmann made a great video on it. So you've been accussed of "death threats" - how do you respond?

I hear this more frequently nowadays, but it really is kind of misplacing the blame for this change. Steam went for this model precisely because many of the bigger game companies to this day refuse to sell their games as anything but a heavily restricted license. And Steam as a storefront does have to cater to them in that regard, especially back then. Even physical disks as others pointed out were technically not something you owned, but rather that resale and such was not enforced or enforceable. (You would definitely get some stern letters if you started copying and selling those games at larger scale, even if you 'owned' the original copy).

People do still sell DRM free games on Steam that you can copy and distribute to essentially your hearts extent without Steam ever getting involved. The license you have is for Steam to provide you the download service so you can get your digital copy (and a bit more). If you care about people owning games, then it's up to you to support and buy from the kinds of companies that don't provide you a license or (more likely) where the license is unrestricted enough to fit your description of ownership. The middleman like Steam you buy it from shouldn't matter if they don't exert undue control beyond that. And at least being on PC if you really must buy something with DRM you have options to remove it.

Installing Linux on PS5 is an exploit as far as I understand it, and requires specific software versions that are already long outdated at this point. But PS5 already runs a Unix like kernel as far as I know. So yes, it would be possible to do it on them if Sony or Microsoft allowed it. Though I doubt they ever will since you could not run Playstation or Xbox games on Linux without huge investment from their side. It's a solution for those looking to jump without the hardware cost, but I am a little anxious in recommending it since Sony full well considers it still their device. And Nintendo has recently shown they aren't shy from just bricking banning your device from their services if they think you're not using it the way they want, I would expect the same from Sony. But if you do it right, probably no way for them to find out. But you could never go back to it just being a Playstation 5 too. In the end it's essentially the same path as my first proposal.

I also notice that when there is a discussion or video regarding modding a console, it’s to “preserve” its longevity rather than having a practical use.

I think that's in part because it's an attempt to tiptoe around the 'red lines' of console manufacturers. It's trying to stay as inoffensive as possible so that it doesn't get put into the same bag as emulators or third party tools to circumvent DRM.

EDIT: The switch example wasn't bricked, but it was banned from using the official services, which isn't much better, but still a distinction to be made.

Your point being? I'm well aware these are because of piracy, it doesn't change my point. If you're a shitty company intent on abusing your customers to extract as much money from them, of course you're going to find any way to do it and take away their forms of protest. But in the end, an artist still gets paid for whichever game they end up greenlighting, and not for the amount of copies sold afterwards. Hell they might not even get paid at all since these are the same kind of companies that would rather fire them for AI.

And for the not so shitty companies, they simply make sure people have no reason to pirate them, and there's a hell of a lot more of those. They just don't make unreasonable amounts of money, almost like that's antithetical to treating your customers fairly.

I mean it really depends on what your wishes would be. If you're thinking big and long term then someone could really go all in on capturing the console crowd with an entirely new console ecosystem. You could definitely simplify an OS like Linux to be a lot more to be more console oriented, such as what SteamOS is already trying to do for Steamdeck and the Steam machine. Even though that will be a balancing act with the openness of the system, since 'making sure you can't easily break this' also makes it hard or impossible to break out of it in case of a change of heart.

But the whole thing with open systems is that they can do very similar things to other open systems. Which is why Linux and Windows (and sometimes Mac) are packed together under the same umbrella. So it would have to content with those three and provide clear upsides to developers, businesses, or players over those, which is hard. That's part of the reason why the big businesses love consoles, because the freedom they take from players, double as tools for them to earn more money.

Most realistically in that route, would be for either Sony, Xbox, or Nintendo, to change their tune and go down that route instead. But that would require immense force from the players to offset the profit lost from changing the status quo. So it really isn't that realistic sadly. Xbox wouldn't do it anyways because it's essentially already even more locked down Windows. Nintendo relies on their exclusives to sell their consoles. Sony would be least unlikely to do it but they recently stopped selling their exclusives on PC because (almost) nobody jumped ship back to Playstation.

The closest and 'easiest' jump in the short term is probably to small formfactor PC hooked up to your TV using eg. SteamOS. Controller support is pretty widely supported nowadays. And since most console game developers also develop for PC, you won't have any issue missing out on your games unless it's Nintendo or exclusives (but that's probably another reason to jump too). With some technical knowledge you could do it without spending a single cent on Steam / Valve if that's your concern. Since you could just run a Linux based system on a mini-PC or console formfactor with eg. Brazzite or another console OS lookalike.

That's fair. I just think like your second part, most people have their reasons like that. But you're correct the culture does also simultaneously allow people that pirate just for free stuff to have it easy. But If the companies don't like it, they can fix that. Currently to them it's just the cost of doing business their way. People drove to Netflix and Steam in hordes when they made a service that was easier and better than pirating. Netflix regressed since then, but Steam still shows it's possible. It just takes an industry as a whole willing to avoid the dark patterns that lead people to piracy.

Not lots sadly. There are certainly some that have a big enough public profile to demand a share, but those are few and far between, and are often doing pretty well for themselves already. To 99% of the people in the industry the response to "I want to get a cut of the game's profits" is "you can find another place to work then."

I don't entirely disagree with your bigger point. At some point you have to just step away from companies that are set on abusing you. But I don't agree that it's immature or skinflinty. That seems to be a rather uncharitable take perhaps lacking in understanding and perspective of why people pirate. There are pirates that take for the sake of it, but that's not mostly the case. Piracy is trackable to a certain degree, and so it is feedback that people want to give you money, but are protesting your decisions. As has been said, piracy is a service problem. People tend to have no problem parting with their money in a fair exchange, and so they often don't, even if they could.

Wanting to be treated fairly and not taking abuse is the opposite of immature in my opinion, how much it costs doesn't even factor into it. Some fights you fight on principle. Too many people accept being taken advantage of in this world, making it worse for everyone else. And without those people piracy would also have been unneeded, because these companies often opt to not fix their issues and instead enshittify harder to squeeze more out of the people that keep paying.

There's also a huge psychological aspect to it. Pirates often still bond with friends over games and those friends can end up buying, and pirates often still contribute to fan communities. Both of these are hard to let go of. They also happen to still help the original game stay relevant despite pirating, so yes, quitting entirely is more effective of a boycott. But also not being able to sell the experience to someone that has already experienced it is also more permanent, and allows that person to remain in their respective communities. Piracy just hits the sweet spot between quitting and no longer directly supporting, which is why people often end up there. And for creators that have to live under the thumb of executives that sabotage their success with hostile business practices, they would much rather you be there than somewhere else, while they try to improve the situation from the inside.