Copyright violations ≠ conversion. Those are two completely different sets of laws. If you’re going to argue that legal definitions back you up, at least make sure you know what they are?

No, it’s a status symbol. iPhone users look down upon the green bubbles, or so they say.

LLM is a form of AI, specifically the text AIs like ChatGPT that have suddenly made “AI” a dinner table term. AI in some form or another is almost definitely being used in your device - even for things like filling in gaps in low-quality voice calls, and probably has been for a while. But the problem is that unlike those “old” AIs, LLMs require some significant power to run, so running them on phones will probably require meaningful trade-offs. But the increased security is also a meaningful benefit.

I think they mean gamesindustry.biz

Where did you read that? I can bet it wasn’t the TOS, because that’s not in there. The TOS allows Adobe to review anything you create with its products using manual or automated means, and maybe restricted to normal screening for CSAM and such (although it’s really ambiguous about what they’ll actually do with it).

ChatGPT makes you a 10x developer, so using it for one year is like ten years of experience ^/s

Indie studios do in fact exist. I haven’t bought a game from a major publisher since… uhh… well, I guess I bought Portal for $1 last year, does Valve still count as a major publisher?

It’s really not though? The Chinese government has a 1% stake in ByteDance. Meanwhile ~60% is foreign investors – believed to be mostly American.

The difficulty of sending patches or reporting issues to the Linux kernel is a feature for them, as it keeps less-experienced devs from wasting maintainer’s time with garbage requests. For most projects it’s a bug.

This isn’t KYC, it’s “prove you’re a human”.

The version of Community Points used on r/CryptoCurrency

Likely only Reddit can say. I don’t think Reddit was ever trying to make money off Community Points directly (in contrast to their NFTs), but rather to boost engagement. Whether or not it did, and by enough to offset the costs of starting and maintaining the system, we’ll likely never know.

I had no idea you could even get it on Steam

Nobody here is arguing from direct information, just implications of vague statements. Here’s where they spell it out in more detail:

https://forum.unity.com/threads/unity-plan-pricing-and-packaging-updates.1482750/

Q: How are you going to collect installs? A: We leverage our own proprietary data model. We believe it gives an accurate determination of the number of times the runtime is distributed for a given project.

Q: If a user reinstalls/redownloads a game, will that count as multiple installs? A: We are not going to charge a fee for reinstalls. The spirit of this program is and has always been to charge for the first install and we have no desire to charge for the same person doing ongoing installs. (Updated, Sep 14)

Note the update there. They completely walked back their previous answer:

Q: If a user reinstalls/redownloads a game / changes their hardware, will that count as multiple installs? A: Yes. The creator will need to pay for all future installs. The reason is that Unity doesn’t receive end-player information, just aggregate data.

Which has lead to a lot of confusion. It seems like their “proprietary data model” is focused on another point, which is preventing install spamming. Or maybe it’s also about reinstalls, even though they “don’t receive end-player information” so that was impossible a few days ago.

Is everyone running their own open source project?

Essentially, I suppose. I put most of my personal projects on GitHub because a) I believe in the open-source philosophy generally and b) sometimes they are helpful to others! For example, because I put SmilApple on GitHub, someone was able to adapt it to make this. And besides, it’s a great way to distribute programs that you want other people to use, like my current project Chokistream, or when I made a fan-translation of a game. None of these are “serious” projects like a new framework or something, and all of them have very limited audiences, but if I’m coding them, I might as well publish them where someone else might be able to benefit from them. I also don’t feel like they’re important for my career, but they’re important for their own sake and I would care if I lost them.

Also, this case does not make AI works uncopyrightable - only those that have no human input.

This is really important. The particular case tried a very difficult argument, that works created by machine have copyright regardless of human input, which no serious copyright experts thought would work because it’s been pretty comprehensively litigated that human creativity is required

They also tried to argue the much more plausible theory that the prompt had creativity, and that the copyright flows down from the prompt to the AI-generated work, but the type of suit they brought didn’t permit that argument. That theory still needs to be litigated, and while I would be a bit surprised to see it work, it’s entirely possible it will. So I’m not ready to say all AI-generated work is PD just yet.

Of course, regardless of if what comes out of the AI is PD, you can make enough modifications to a PD work and create something you can copyright. Many people are doing enough “touch-ups” to AI art that the final product is potentially copyrightable. Amusingly, the better the generator, the less the human has to do here, and the weaker the protection becomes.

It’s called the “US Patent and Trademark Office”, so they must be basically the same thing, right‽