Having been homeless before - fuck that mentality.
The majority of homelessness is brought about as a result of circumstances, not drugs.
Domestic Violence, lack of affordable housing, lack of social safety nets, LGBTQ individuals ousted from their families, mental illness with lack of support.
I was homeless for 3 years, because I was LGBT and my parents cut me off from support. Rent in Seattle doubled when Amazon moved in, and the roommates I was living with were unreliable. I ended up homeless and moved to a small town that had even less amenities and had the mentality that if I was homeless I must have been on drugs.
I was treated with disdain by most of the people I was trying to get help from, finding a job was much harder without a permanent address. Housing assistance programs had 3 year waitlists. I was told if I wanted more assistance I should have a baby because it would push me to the front of the list.
The "cracked out methhead smearing human excrement on the walls" is someone that needs psychiatric help, not jail. And they are a relatively small portion of the homeless population.
Exactly, Google for sure should have updated it but why had the city or even a concerned neighbor not put a fence or even a log or something there to block access to the bridge? A sign and a temporary barrier would have saved lives here.
Hell non-locals might have driven off the thing without GPS help, depending on how the bridge looked from road-level
It's like if I took an old version of photoshop and sold the pictures on patreon, but my patreon blew up and adobe decided they wanted a piece of the pie and changed their TOS, and made me take the jpg I made when I was under a DIFFERENT TOS down,remake the jpg in GIMP, or pay them for the privilege of keeping that picture up on the internet, and also any time that picture appears on imageboard I could also maybe be charged for it, but they totally have a way to tell if it was gotten from the imageboard or patreon trust them but they won't tell us how.
Unity has trapped game developers and held them hostage. Those devs made the game under one set of rules and pricing model, and now that the game is out they have a choice of destroying their product by removing it from availability, or pay money they had no way of predicting they would need? Just because you don't like the game devs doesn't mean Unity didn't fuck them over, and it sets a dangerous precedent.
there is no amazing technology to develop. I a random guy on the internet, could set up a bot with existing technology right now to just keep making VMs and installing the game. It would take an evening. Hell it doesn't even have to be a rival game company, it could literally be someone on 4chan who thought it would be funny.
The problem isn't that Unity is changing their pricing model, it's that without warning they have changed their terms to a highly volatile pricing model that is holding game developers hostage.
"it mostly affects people I don't like" doesn't make it good (or legal) policy.
Take for example genshin impact: it's made in unity, has a high production value, is f2p with a in-game currency that can be purchased, and meets the threshold for the change requirements. The same company has several other similarly modeled games released across multiple platforms (PC and PlayStation).
Without any sort of heads up this company now will face massive charges because of high install volume, especially if the average user installs on multiple devices, but low individual income.
Should Hoyoverse have to remake all of their games in a new engine or deal with this new price structure with no way to plan for how much the new structure will cost them?
The game is also often review bombed by rival games. What would stop a rival company from setting up a bot that just mass installs on VMs to try and charge up their bill?
If that company sticks with the pricing structure there is a high chance production value will go down simply because costs have skyrocketed.
Unity has basically entrapped developers. Whether the devs are worth saving doesn't come into play - whether you can trap someone into using your product then retroactively charge them for their success is the question, and I think most game devs would say "no".
Unlike PayPal though, you can't just close your account and hop to stripe instead. Once you develop a game you're stuck with that engine until you redevelop the game. Moving engines is not easy simple or fast.
It's like if I owned an old version of Photoshop and Adobe contacted me to say that because the jpg I produced blew up on Twitter I owe them $1000. I can't retroactively take the picture down and recreate it in gimp and I shouldn't have to. Most alternative products to unity simply do a hand wave to old products. "If your game was made in engine 2.0 you have this pricing structure, but engine 3.0 users have a different one"
This is absolutely it. I'm a tech lover at heart, I am constantly playing with all the newest stuff that comes out. And when I first saw some of the things people were doing with Stable Diffusion I was very interested. Quickly mocking up textures for simplistic scenes? Quickly filling in repetitive background elements or flat coloring artwork to save artists time? Smart fill, smart lighting, these are some powerful tools, especially for concept art or speeding up commission work.
But the first thing I saw people do is start generating "good enough" art to get their ideas out, and as an artist, I saw how shit the art looked - but it was enough for the people who were not artists. I have seen quite a few friends lose long-time commissioners who are just generating tons of ideas with clicks.
I don't lament people's ability to generate ideas or become invested in art with tools that make it easy for them. I lament the corporate idiots that are going to try to make fully AI generated movies and paintings and books, and flood the market, kill all the real artists, and yeah, enshittify our art and media.
Absolutely, because art isnt the same as crunching numbers. No accountant created the math they are crunching and then had a 3rd party come in and vacuum up their work and spit out a computer that creates a facimile of their work to replace them.
The problem isn't with tools being developed, but how they are going to be exploited in the current system that the world exists in. There is outrage for AI generated art because it:
A) is trained on work from existing artists without consent or permission
B) will be used to push artists out of their ability to make money to feed themselves
In a perfect world where artists could sustain themselves while practicing thier craft, this wouldn't be such a devisive issue. If you want to think about things from a counter-culture "hacker" perspective, we should be talking not about limiting AI but how we should be elevating artists to be able to exist despite the advancement in technology removing their jobs.
Its insane to think that artists won't be upset that their entire field, one centered on years and years of practice and learning, is about to be disrupted by a program that can create a thousand works in the span of a few minutes, trained on their own hard work without permission. Especially when these people already often work lower-paying jobs in order to make ends meet so they can work on their passion.
Is it really "hacker" to expect people to have to give up their happy lives doing work they enjoy so they can be shoved into the meat-grinder of a 9 to 5 job, because a program replaced them? Since when is it counter-culture to replace the leisure aspects of life with tech just because we can?
The tools themselves aren't evil and can be very helpful with artists, but it's not insane to see why its receiving push back from the art community who stand to lose the most from it.
I had to make an account just to come in here to tell you you are not correct.
Copyright is held automatically by the person who produces the work unless otherwise specified in a contract or agreement. I am a commission artist, and I retain all copyright to all of my work, per my terms of service, unless otherwise sold via agreement, and I charge extra for copyright.
Someone can't commission me to paint something, and then turn around and sell prints of it themselves. I still did the work, and they need my approval before they can legally make money off of it.
The reason why AI art is so devisive right now is because thousands of artists have had their work scraped and the AI trained on their work without their permission or compensation, and unlike a human who looks at other art for reference or inspiration, an AI can look at a dataset and pump out thousands of similar images in a very tiny amount of time.
If the AI author or the user generating the image owns copyright, you can kiss artists selling their own work goodbye. The space will be flooded with "AI artists" who create work at a far faster pace than anything a real artist can create, for a fraction of the cost. The people who train AI on this art are profiteering off of the hard work of the people who spent years of their lives developing a skill.
The majority of homelessness is brought about as a result of circumstances, not drugs.
Domestic Violence, lack of affordable housing, lack of social safety nets, LGBTQ individuals ousted from their families, mental illness with lack of support.
I was homeless for 3 years, because I was LGBT and my parents cut me off from support. Rent in Seattle doubled when Amazon moved in, and the roommates I was living with were unreliable. I ended up homeless and moved to a small town that had even less amenities and had the mentality that if I was homeless I must have been on drugs.
I was treated with disdain by most of the people I was trying to get help from, finding a job was much harder without a permanent address. Housing assistance programs had 3 year waitlists. I was told if I wanted more assistance I should have a baby because it would push me to the front of the list.
The "cracked out methhead smearing human excrement on the walls" is someone that needs psychiatric help, not jail. And they are a relatively small portion of the homeless population.