Do we know how big the file is?

Why does a flight simulator of all things need to be a live service game?

False flags are a real thing and hateful people often hide behind emphatic opposition of what they would rightly be criticized as being.

Seems reasonable, at least it’s not a ban and probably won’t be

Itch.io hasn’t yet addressed that inquiry directly, but one possibility is simply that generative AI is already in widespread use: 31% of respondent to a GDC study published earlier this year said they’re personally using generative AI in their work, and 18% said they’re not using it themselves but have colleagues who are—though not necessarily to create anything players actually see. Given those numbers, and the fact that they’re inevitably going to grow, a straight up ban on generative AI may not be workable.

Well if I was doing it I probably would be trying to focus on browser emulation to avoid having to dig into those sorts of details. It sounds like OP is a beginner and needs a simple method.

IIRC it should be able to be made to work since it does everything a browser does, found this search result, though it has been a while since I used it myself at all. Another thing you might try that has worked for me is iMacros, that’s a little simpler and more basic than Selenium but should work for what you say you want to do.

The reason to use Selenium is if the website you want to scrape uses javascript in a way that inhibits getting content without a full browser environment. BeautifulSoup is just a parser, it can’t solve that problem.

I assume it’s ultimately serious (they want to drop the pretense that it’s about the value of the life of a fetus) but a use of irony poisoning on some level. Some real zero self awareness assholes regardless.

Supposedly it was coined by some right wing influencer and went viral

stfu

I’ll just say again that for the original comment that this is about, leaving aside anything I wrote, that demand is not justified, and I don’t regret pushing back on it.

There are conversations where it’s better to just leave it, but I don’t see this as one of them.

which is about how women have to deal with this bullshit all the time online

The point has been made. If you have more to say about it, go ahead.

You don’t need to participate, if this isn’t the subject that you want to talk about.

The unspoken thing I guess being that I shouldn’t participate if that isn’t something I have anything to say about. It sounds like something you want is for discussions that can be considered to be about women’s issues to be narrowly framed as such, and think there’s something wrong with engaging with the discussion in a way that doesn’t do this. I think this is much less reasonable than anything the comic itself is saying. There is a big difference between talking about the same issue but in a broader way, and remarking something overtly irrelevant and hostile like “what about circumcision”. That isn’t to say that spaces exclusively for narrowly framed discussion about women’s issues shouldn’t exist, but I don’t see a reason this comment thread has to be one, or why not considering it to be one should be regarded as offensive.

Googling “Luce porn” immediately surfaced sites where people are posting what appears to be handmade images of exactly that (click at your own risk), but searching Civitai specifically, a site which makes AI-generating porn of anyone and anything extremely easy, turned up the real motherlode.

I gotta say, the choice to write this article itself is questionable. It’s obvious this stuff would exist to anyone familiar with the internet, but describing the images in lurid detail and saying exactly how to get them complete with direct links, kinda sus.

The men replying are almost never showing support, they’re minimizing the issue, or they’re trying to co-opt the thread.

To me, the comment in question didn’t seem to be doing that. The point I’m trying to make is to object to the idea that it is categorically doing that, given the context. It seems like a divisive way of deciding what is bad behavior, to condemn any statement made in response to discussion about problems faced by one group that is not specifically about the struggles of that group, regardless of anything else about the statement.

This is a specific complaint about how any time women try to talk about women’s issues in a forum that may contain men, those men engage in disingenuous whataboutism.

If you would rather expand on how that goes or the ways in which this is predominantly a women’s issue, feel free to take this opportunity instead of responding to what else I’m saying.

The comic is about how when people speak online online about women’s issues, dudes keep trying to make it about dudes.

This is a legitimate complaint in the situations where the topic is uniquely a women’s issue, and people are trying to redirect the conversation to something that really isn’t the same thing and is a separate issue so talking about that means you aren’t talking about the first thing anymore. But the meta issue of someone trying to talk about one group’s problems and getting hit by whataboutism, seems arguably more universal and might not be specifically a women’s issue, so saying something along the lines of “yeah this happens to us too it sucks”, could be supportive and not about shutting up discussion of the original topic.

The comic is about the meta issue so it’s not quite the same imo

But I think the point is, the OP meme is wrong to try painting this as some kind of society-wide psychological pathology, when it’s rather business people coming up with simple reliable formulas to make money. The space of possible products people could want is large, and this choice isn’t only about what people want, but what will get attention. People will readily pay attention to and discuss with others something they already have a connection to in a way they wouldn’t with some new thing, even if they would rather have something new.

that is not the … available outcome.

It demonstrably is already though. Paste a document in, then ask questions about its contents; the answer will typically take what’s written there into account. Ask about something you know is in a Wikipedia article that would have been part of its training data, same deal. If you think it can’t do this sort of thing, you can just try it yourself.

Obviously it can handle simple sums, this is an illustrative example

I am well aware that LLMs can struggle especially with reasoning tasks, and have a bad habit of making up answers in some situations. That’s not the same as being unable to correlate and recall information, which is the relevant task here. Search engines also use machine learning technology and have been able to do that to some extent for years. But with a search engine, even if it’s smart enough to figure out what you wanted and give you the correct link, that’s useless if the content behind the link is only available to institutions that pay thousands a year for the privilege.

Think about these three things in terms of what information they contain and their capacity to convey it:

• A search engine

• Dataset of pirated contents from behind academic paywalls

• A LLM model file that has been trained on said pirated data

The latter two each have their pros and cons and would likely work better in combination with each other, but they both have an advantage over the search engine: they can tell you about the locked up data, and they can be used to combine the locked up data in novel ways.

Ok, but I would say that these concerns are all small potatoes compared to the potential for the general public gaining the ability to query a system with synthesized expert knowledge obtained from scraping all academically relevant documents. If you’re wondering about something and don’t know what you don’t know, or have any idea where to start looking to learn what you want to know, a LLM is an incredible resource even with caveats and limitations.

Of course, it would be better if it could also directly reference and provide the copyrighted/paywalled sources it draws its information from at runtime, in the interest of verifiably accurate information. Fortunately, local models are becoming increasingly powerful and lower barrier of entry to work with, so the legal barriers to such a thing existing might not be able to stop it for long in practice.

The OP tweet seems to be leaning pretty hard on the “AI bad” sentiment. If LLMs make academic knowledge more accessible to people that’s a good thing for the same reason what Aaron Swartz was doing was a good thing.