more than two. they also had similar things happen in the JPO apparently. Or something like that.

Yeah and... The titles they didn't promote well enough sometimes did much better than expected (e.g Tsushima).

Instead of taking this into account and putting more effort into single player games that were actually making them more money than they expected, they chased the fleeting extractor shooter market (which anyone could tell them is severely limited because its player base have to be cool with the risk of losing everything every time they play... that's a pretty acquired taste eh) on the premise that they might catch the next fortnite.

It really seems like the folks making the decisions here don't understand the environment but assume it should conform to them rather than the other way around.

There were two separate things there. Yeah they lost that court battle, but around the same time the USPTO granted them some kind of patent for RPGs where you build the party as you go.
The USPTO then revoked that patent a few months ago, because it should never have been issued in the first place.

Are you complaining about the long established indulgent practice by game console companies where they call something 'exclusive' when they mean 'there is a limited window time where it's on our console but nowhere else'?

You're probably like 20 years too late to get mad about this.

This sure does look at bit like someone in the global sony exec not understanding that Bungie's failure with Marathon was as much their fault as Bungie's and blaming the whole thing on PC gaming as a whole.

That and believing that they don't need to compete with the xbox any more.

Lets see how that goes for them, I guess.

There were also two Megami Tensei games and the first Shin Megami Tensei released by the time Pokemon Red and Green were released in Japan in 1994.

They never should have had a patent on that, and they shouldn't be allowed to add 'with a stylus' to the end of it and suddenly patent something they couldn't before... just like they shouldn't be able to add 'on the internet'.

Can you explain where this exuberant confidence comes from?

My back of the napkin math that tries to make the current wave of LLM based businesses profitable always fails... This isn't true of all systems people refer to as AI, but so far every solution for OpenAI, Anthropic (and probably Microsoft too, maybe not Google, hard to say) seems to involve them putting their prices up at least 10 times (and possibly up to 50 times for OpenAI).

If you have a solution that isn't just a tautology about token prices, please feel free to explain it.

valid and amusing concern.

and yet I'm not sure that it will matter too much to the people desperately trying to prevent the outputs getting in their training data... or the people who don't know why they'd need to. For different reasons, obviously.

Pretty sure their message translates to "it doesn't support the glorified narratives I was taught in school".

I'm not even hating on them for it, it's so common that they just don't know that high school history is simplified to the point of making it seem like the famous people did all the work.

Pretty sure the GP is referencing Conservapedia, specifically. So yes... it would still be a massive duplication of effort.

In case you're not aware... it's well established (with decades of data backing it up, as well as documented cases from modern systems... and if you're really keen exercises you can try yourself) that feeding the output of a language model back to itself as training data will cause it to stop appearing to mimic plausible human speech within a few generations. Generally it will get caught looping on single phrases and wont respond meaningfully, and then if you keep going with the training you'll find it stuck just repeating a single word but taking a ton of processing time to do it.

Poisoned data doesn't necessarily lead to more or less 'hallucinations'. It might instead prevent an LLM from even forming meaningful sentences in the first place... and there's no obvious tell for generated data that humans can actually use to filter this data out of a training set. It can probably be automated, but there's a cost to that (in terms of processing time) and it's necessarily going to be pretty high... perhaps to the point where it also makes the process cost ineffective... but the alternative is that any random data you ingest from the internet might actually make your model's performance worse, and it'd take you quite a bit of effort to work out which data was causing the problem.

Pretty sure the producers of a movie that reused a script from a 1930s sci fi pulp novel want to have a word with you, legally speaking.

Which movie? Take your pick.

My understanding is that if your code would take longer than the projected life of the universe, an LLM will warn you and prevent you from running it.

It's not clear what happens if the amount of time is the lifetime of the universe minus 1.

Is it possible that actually there might be problems that you've never heard of that aren't just that someone is upset about copyright?

Also wonder how many other examples of there are that aren't being advertised.

This is some A grade poison, but also kind of an obvious thing to do.