That kind of depends how you define autonomy. Whichever way, I’m not sure I get how “virtual” is a better descriptor for implying a lack of it than “artificial” is.

Also by “we don’t actually know how it works” do you mean that we can’t explain why a particular “decision” was made by an AI, or do you mean that we don’t know how AI works in general? If it’s the first that’s generally true, if it’s the second I disagree (we know a lot, but still have a lot to learn).

I don’t understand the desire to argue against the terms being used here when it fits both the common and academic usages of “AI”

Just to make an argument that at a glance that single image looks like Minecraft?

Yup, that’s the reason. OP had said that the textures weren’t even similar iirc. Arguing against that doesn’t mean I was arguing against their overall conclusion about the DMCA being invalid. Probably should have phrased it less confrontationally.

Well, yeah. I’m not arguing that they actually copied Minecraft. I’m arguing that they ended up in a visually similar place. Which it doesn’t seem you disagree with?

My point is that it can be true that the screenshot looks like Minecraft without the game actually being an MC ripoff.

And as an aside, Terraria being a 2d game has different considerations for their visuals. You’re basically getting xray vision into each block. The sides of terraria blocks do have grass, but unlike in MC or Allumeria you can also see the dirt inside the block.

I get your point, but there are some pretty specific similarities, notably:

• Grass texture sides having exposed dirt
• Clumps of pumpkin blocks as a forest-generating feature
• Single-block tree trunks with a clump of leaves on top
• Minecraft-like terrain generation and texturing

All of which are featured prominently in the screenshot. There are differences-- taller trees, more small vegetation, different grass block color variation, colored and differently-modeled leaves-- but it’s more similar than other voxel-based games I’m familiar with. Maybe I don’t play many mc-likes, but other voxel games like Fractal Block World, Teardown, that foresty one with the tiny voxels (forgot the name), Lucid Blocks (the other voxel game by this same creator(!!) about a liminal world), and even Hypixel have more notable differences than this screenshot does. Maybe there’s more to the game that’s different, but this particular screenshot looks like lightly modded MC.

None in particular, but I don’t have experience with triple-A games enough to know about this artstyle

I’m not arguing about whether the copyright claim is legit. I’m saying that claiming the picture in the post doesn’t look like MC is a questionable opinion at best.

It looks like Minecraft bro turn off your reality distortion field

I really appreciate posts like this. Thank you for making Lemmy a better place!

Misinfo, we can’t do this lmao

“Sir, I think this scene is a bad idea.”

“Yes! It’s a horribly, wickedly bad idea for the greater good of bad!”

“Ok, no, I mean like, from a bad perspective, it may seem like a good idea. But from a good perspective? It’s just plain bad.”

“Oh, you don’t know what’s good for bad.”

Wtf?

Are you? Because now we’ve agreed on every fact to determine my conclusion is correct. Yes they do want people using their product; they want to lure in customers. Wasting tokens generating unhelpful output would both drive customers away with a worse experience, and cost them more money. So there’s no reason for them to do that. Like I said in my first post.

Creating additional tokens LOSES them money. For a single token, the cost of generating it exceeds the profits.

I genuinely don’t understand what would drive someone to be this condescending when you don’t even understand the argument I have clearly laid out four times now.

Because they currently lose money for every token sold. They’re operating at a loss to generate a userbase so that they can monetize later. They’re currently in the pre-enshittification (I still don’t like that word) phase where they want to offer a good product at a loss and lure in customers, not phase 2 where they monetize their userbase.

I don’t think this really addresses my second point.

Hmm, interesting theory. However:

1. We know this is an issue with language models, it happens all the time with weaker ones - so there is an alternative explanation.

2. LLMs are running at a loss right now, the company would lose more money than they gain from you - so there is no motive.

Why would it be by design? What does that even mean in this context?

Leftist probably

Elaborate?