underyx

> why should consumers care that a poor business loses business? Not seeing the downside here

It's okay to disagree with what I'm saying but please acknowledge that you are arguing against a statement different from what I'm saying. I'm claiming that they would not lose business at all. Not that they shouldn't lose business.

> if it ends up impacting their finances maybe they should just you know... not ship slop

Again, I'm saying this would end up not impacting any developers' finances, because nearly no players would take the AI tag seriously.

> If you don't want to be tagged as AI, don't use AI to write your games

I don’t think you understood my point. If 90% of new games get tagged as AI no matter how non-slop they are, no developer will care if they get tagged, and most players will ignore the tags since it carries no meaning about the quality of the games.

I don’t have solutions but tagging AI is definitely not easy. A lot of art is expressed via code: particle effects, menu layouts, iconography, animation keyframes. AI having written any of the code would get so many games tagged as AI that the label would lose all meaning. More recently, Opus 5.5 is clearly a model that started to develop visual taste and can draw images with code, as opposed to outputting images as tokens or via diffusion. And these capability gains are still accelerating.

There’s a wide spectrum of AI art between particle effects and a character drawn with brushstrokes via code or computer use and it’s hard to decide what should be labelled and how the labels can be enforced.

The headline should've been "OpenAI annualised revenues $20B less than previously signalled by us". The FT is just reporting high number to create a story, then a low number to create another story.

Insane take. Imagine a Boeing engineer resigning whistleblowing about aircraft safety, and the top comment on HN saying “ignore this if he doesn’t donate all his wealth, he just wants to be an aircraft safety influencer”

Man I can't believe now even the Australian government is hyping the OpenAI IPO, what do they even have to gain from this??

And red teaming exercises found that ~80% of labs will gladly synthesize known pathogens without safety review.

No, the highest probability estimate I've seen in this thread is 10% chance in the next 3 years.

"So you think in 3 years AI is going to solve longstanding math problems because it was used to write some coherent sentences?" — people with the same amount of foresight in 2023

If more than 0.05% of the rationalist and AI safety community were Zizians this argument might be worth considering for like ten seconds before dismissing it.

So maybe it is possible to use alternate words in writing without compromising on writing quality after all.

What are they gonna think of next, productizing something as trivial as FTP?

I'm not sure about the answer here, but this can be caused by the scoring rubric used by given benchmarks. For instance, if a benchmark docks scores for running too many commands or using too much wall-clock time, higher efforts will get lower scores.