With Larian’s previous game having great DM tools and them saying they would’ve loved to do DM tools for BG3, I think WotC telling them not to is a fair assumption to make.
With Larian’s previous game having great DM tools and them saying they would’ve loved to do DM tools for BG3, I think WotC telling them not to is a fair assumption to make.
Good intentions alone don’t guarantee good outcomes. I suggest not giving any single person or entity too much power, no matter who they are.
My bad, I wasn’t precise enough with what I wanted to say. Of course you can confirm (with astronomically high likelihood) that a screenshot of AI Overview is genuine if you get the same result with the same prompt.
What you can’t really do is prove the negative. If someone gets an output then replicating their prompt won’t necessarily give you the same output, for a multitude of reasons. e.g. it might take all other things Google knows about you into account, Google might have tweaked something in the last few minutes, the stochasticity of the model is leading to a different output, etc.
Also funny you bring up image generation, where this actually works too in some cases. For example they used the same prompt with multiple different seeds and if there’s a cluster of very similar output images, you can surmise that an image looking very close to that was in the training set.
Assuming AI Overview does not cache results, they would be generated at search-time for each user and “search-event” independently. Even recreating the same prompt would not guarantee a similar AI Overview, so there’s no way to confirm.
Edit: See my comment below for what I actually meant to say
Assuming we shrink all spacial dimensions equally: With Z, the diagonal will also shrink so that the two horizontal lines would be closer together and then you could not fit them into the original horizontal lines anymore. Only once you shrink the Z far enough that it would fit within the line-width could you fit it into itself again. X I and L all work at any arbitrary amount of shrinking though.
So is the example with the dogs/wolves and the example in the OP.
As to how hard to resolve, the dog/wolves one might be quite difficult, but for the example in the OP, it wouldn’t be hard to feed in all images (during training) with randomly chosen backgrounds to remove the model’s ability to draw any conclusions based on background.
However this would probably unearth the next issue. The one where the human graders, who were probably used to create the original training dataset, have their own biases based on race, gender, appearance, etc. This doesn’t even necessarily mean that they were racist/sexist/etc, just that they struggle to detect certain emotions in certain groups of people. The model would then replicate those issues.
I hope you’re right because this article says they used a spray can.
Which brings me back to the last point in my comment.
I also hope I’m right. The two times I looked into it (right after the attack and before writing my comment) both came up with that result. Also it seems that English Heritage came out today saying there was “No visible damage”.
As I said, I’m not writing to defend the action, just pointing out that the OP article is, willfully or not, omitting certain aspects that could make JSO look a little bit better.
Edit: Formatting
but we did damage a 5000-year-old monument
As far as I could find out, they used orange cornflour that will just wash off the next time it rains. The most amount of damage anyone could seriously bring up was that it could harm/displace the lichen on the henge.
That’s not to say that I specifically condone the action, but it’s a lot less bad than this article makes it sound. It’s the same with the soup attack on one of van Gogh’s painting, which had protective glass on it. So far all the JSO actions targeting cultural/historical things (at least the ones that made it to the big news) have been done in a way that makes them sound awful at first hearing, but intentionally did not actually damage the targeted cultural/historical thing.
I think the biases of the journalist/news outlet/etc. are somewhat exposed by which parts they focus on and which they downplay or omit entirely.
Eh, nothing I did was “figuring out which loophole [they] use”. I’d think most people in this thread talking about the mathematics that could make it a true statement are fully aware that the companies are not using any loophole and just say “above average” to save face. It’s simply a nice brain teaser to some people (myself included) to figure out under which circumstances the statement could be always true.
Also if you wanna be really pedantic, the math is not about the companies, but a debunking of the original Tweet which confidently yet incorrectly says that this statement couldn’t be always true.
Same. I had PayPal do an automated charge back because their system thought I was doing something fraudulent when I wasn’t. Steam blocked my account.
Talking to support and re-buying said game did fix the issue for me.
It’s even simpler. A strictly increasing series will always have element n be higher than the average between any element<n and element n.
Or in other words, if the number of calls is increasing every day, it will always be above average no matter the window used. If you use slightly larger windows you can even have some local decreases and have it still be true, as long as the overall trend is increasing (which you’ve demonstrated the extreme case of).
so the names of the ai characters HAVE to be stored in game…
Some games also generate names oh the fly based on rules. For example, KSP stitches names together based on a pre- and suffix and then rejects a few unfortunate possible combinations such as Dildo, prompting a reroll.
I suspect with your game, they just fed it a dictionary of common words though without properly vetting it.
I’m still not 100% trusting that. Any time a dev comes up with a new feature like this one, they might forget to implement a check if the game is privated (or do the check and mess up properly hiding it).
I’d argue that with their definition of bots as “a software application that runs automated tasks over the internet” and later their definition of download bots as “Download bots are automated programs that can be used to automatically download software or mobile apps.”, automated software updates could absolutely be counted as bot activity by them.
Of course, if they count it as such, the traffic generated that way would fall into the 17.3% “good bot” traffic and not in the 30.2% “bad bot” traffic.
Looking at their report, without digging too deep into it, I also find it concerning that they seem to use “internet traffic” and “website traffic” interchangeably.
Funny because all they have to do is ask ChatGPT “Are you always right?” and it’ll answer something about it trying to always be right but indeed not always being right.
If House has taught me anything, it’s D, but then E.
Because it’s a cat.
Even worse, a VAC ban in your game will probably transfer to your account in general. You won’t only be affected in that game, but in any games that check your VAC status.
I’m pretty sure this was already the case in some games before, depending on the netcode of the game.
The old FAQ said:
What if a borrower is caught cheating or committing fraud while playing my shared games? Your Family Sharing privileges may be revoked and your account may also be VAC banned if a borrower cheats or commits fraud. In addition, not all VAC protected games are shareable. We recommend you only authorize familiar Steam Accounts and familiar computers you know to be secure. And as always, never give your password to anyone.
If it’s a game with VAC it probably always worked as described above, but for example: People in Fall Guys did use this trick to avoid getting banned for cheating until they turned off Family Share for Fall Guys shortly after release.
Despite all that, there was the Warlock who Ninja’d the Sword dropping in Naxx on the final day. Fun times. Now that we’re slowly approaching Classic MoP we’ll finally see if the masterplan worked out too.