boca_honey

This shouldn't be confusing. Pirating software Is the defacto practice for most of the world, excluding anglo countries and I guess Japan. In places like Russia, China and the global south, many/most non-free games are out of reach for the vast majority. Also most people here don't buy into the moral outrage of piracy, which is effectively propaganda IMO.

I don't have a problem with AI and can't stand the anti-AI brigade, but... this is the worst thing I have ever seen in my life.

This specific type of garbage is exactly what arms the anti-AI critics with valid arguments. We should really wait a few years for the technology to mature before releasing these kinds of projects into the cultural sphere.

The Ugly.

Yeah, I don't mean "mature" in the sense of the rating system, which does in fact mean "made for 14-year-old boys."

I don't like or understand David Lynch, but you get what I'm trying to say. There is no one in the video game landscape doing something similar to what Welles or Kurosawa did in cinema, or what Yorgos Lanthimos and Ari Aster are doing now (or Matt Reeves and Guillermo del Toro, if you're not into arthouse stuff).

Every time someone argues about this, they cite the same old examples (Disco Elysium, Outer Wilds, some narrative indie game)... but those examples usually lack in gameplay, which is, in my opinion, the most important part of what makes a video game its own medium.

I hope to see in my lifetime someone do to video games what the French did to cinema in the 50s and the Americans did in the 60s: graduating the medium from a disposable entertainment artifact into an art form for the ages. The medium is still young, it's not impossible.

Nintendo is great for children, yes. I wish there were something like them for a more mature audience.

There is no such consensus. Those are just popular answers coming from people with eurocentric tastes over the last couple of centuries. Millions in the global south would swap The Beatles for Celia Cruz or Fela Kuti. People in Asia from the 1700s to this day would tell you Tyagaraja is a way better composer than Beethoven and Mozart put together... he is a literal saint in India, actually.

Not to mention, many people would disregard your answer for putting Stephen King (and Tolkien, to a lesser extent) in the same sentence as Tolstoy and Shakespeare.

There is no "better" anything when we talk about culture. No consensus, etc. There are just opinions.

That's just cultural elitism. I hope you meet someone in your life who finds absolute joy in reading young adult romance novels or D&D fantasy books so you can understand how irrelevant "good" literature is. I love Dostoevsky and Verne (and D&D novels, especially those written by R.A. Salvatore), but I would never judge the modern "IPs" that got my daughter into reading.

> best literature

What does that even mean?

I know programming is what's most important to many in this community, but as an outsider I need to ask: literally WTF is Odin? I mean I know about Java and C++, etc. But Odin? That's what Wikipedia policies are for. It cannot include anything and everything about every single profession, subculture, or interest group.

An anime community would complain that a very influential (but largely unknown and mostly lost) OVA from 1987 should have its own article. A Peruvian community could argue that one of its most celebrated local activists should have his own article. Of course they would, but how could Wikipedia know they are really what they claim if there isn't a standard of what a credible/respectable source is?

That being said, Wikipedia editors are just Reddit mods with delusions of grandeur, so anything that brings them down is fine by me. Grokpedia has the right idea... I actually think that's the future. Too bad it's controlled by a grifting manchild.

Some poor underage girl has been trafficked in the Philippines since she can remember, and it is the only life she will ever know. Roofing 14 hours a day sounds like a pretty sweet gig.

(See? Suffering is not a competition).

TikTok won? YouTube is significantly larger, with over 2.7 billion monthly active users compared to TikTok's 1.6 billion.

Even if you count TikTok's higher average watch time per user, YouTube's broader demographic more than makes up for it.

The website is clearly vibecoded, and that makes me assume the app is also vibecoded. When I open the installer, Edge gives me a warning that the file is not safe. I know that just means the dev hasn't purchased a certificate, but it adds to the general feeling that this is a rushed project that asks 30 dollars for something that I can make with Gemini in about the time it took to write this comment.

I'm pretty sure the dev has good intentions, the app is safe, and it works... but I'm not going to find out because it's too much money and too risky.

It is a good idea, though. I'll check the comments for free, open-source alternatives, but if I don't find one, I'll probably just generate a script that does this when I get back home.

There are plenty of books, art, and music coming out, none of it AI-generated. What are you talking about?

As you said, the internet had slop before AI. It has been that way since SEO and social media started to dictate what people consume. Remember Elsagate? Remember the IRA bot farms? Remember NFT monkey PNGs?

Most books were trash before the internet, and most paintings have been amateur since the dawn of painting. We just don't remember those examples because we only preserve the best from each era.

Even if 99% of books published in the next 50 years turn out to be AI-generated slop (which is probably what's going to happen, to be honest), that 1% would still be more than you could possibly read in your lifetime. That goes for music, video games, and visual art too.

Let the AI bros make their slop. They are of no consequence to actual culture in the long term.

Why do you think AI is making things worse? Please explain.

I'm 43 years old, dude. Stop fighting with people and learn to adapt.