MoogleMaestro

@ MoogleMaestro @lemmy.zip

Posts

171
Comments

370
Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

Retro Gaming lemmy.zip

Kart Games lemmy.zip

Anime @ani.social
MoogleMaestro @lemmy.zip
2d ago

Gundam Creator Yoshiyuki Tomino Offers Thoughts on Ongoing Wars - Anime News Network

www.animenewsnetwork.com /interest/2026-04-25/gundam-creator-yoshiyuki-tomino-offers-thoughts-on-ongoing-wars/.236763

8
World of JRPGs @lemmy.zip
MoogleMaestro @lemmy.zip
2d ago

1st Permanent Square Enix Café in U.S. to Open at Los Angeles - Anime News Network

www.animenewsnetwork.com /news/2026-04-25/1st-permanent-square-enix-cafe-in-u.s-to-open-at-los-angeles/.236787

1
2d ago

[PlayStation] [DRM] Licenses now requires an online check-in every 30 days.
Jump
MoogleMaestro @lemmy.zip 2d ago
Granted, sure, but they don't even need the data (or a disc, for that matter) and that would still beat forcing a login every 30 days (at least IMO)

Retro Gaming @lemmy.zip

MoogleMaestro @lemmy.zip

2d ago

NeoPico-HD [for the Neo Geo] – 720p Support Added - Bob (RetroRGB)

retrorgb.com /neopico-hd-720p-support-added.html

2d ago

[PlayStation] [DRM] Licenses now requires an online check-in every 30 days.

Jump

MoogleMaestro @lemmy.zip 2d ago

My guess would be no. I think this is effectively a "log in to play this game again" check that will happen if you are disconnected from the service for a month, basically.

Honestly, I would prefer they adopt a game-key-card approach if this is really the direction they're going to take. At least a physical key would make more sense than a digital key that needs constant online connection for validity.

If you think about AI systems as effectively complex DSP problems and equations, then logically any system that takes inputs that are potentially the outputs can cause system feedback or recursive (destructive) loops. What scares AI companies is that, while most recursive loops are easy to detect immediately, "content loops" will be much harder to detect as the delay time between inputs is much larger compared to, say, audio or programming loops where feedback is obvious immediately.

This is effectively the theory behind the practice of data poising, and it's hard to say there's no validity to it as most AI companies are terrified of data poisoning. If it didn't work, companies wouldn't be so adamantly vocal about their distaste for model poisoning conceptually. Also, a lot of time and money is spent trying to "detect" AI content for a reason -- that reason is actually to help aid the detection of AI output which must be "valuable" to the companies to spend the resources on it.

Conversely, AI makers have learned of ways to avoid this by simply having human semantic "grading" of the content done by third parties. This is why there are so many deals going on in Africa / SE Asia where these AI companies are hiring English speakers to effectively "wash" the input by giving it contextual "extra information" and rough validation scoring. This is an expensive solution, though, so they're very much dependent on AI being the bees-knees of lucrative investment for this process to continue. I'd also argue, with the rate at which AI development has slowed down, the semantic grading of content being fed into the system also has diminishing returns. However, this is effectively a "survival of the fittest" style evolutionary simulation, where the AI is only interested in training off information it happens to find is "right" or "close enough" or whatever metric the grader finds. The feedback is less of a problem if the validity of the input can be assured or "cleaned up" to prevent unintended loops, basically.

Now, "are the programs that claim to poison the datasets effective?" Hmm, that's a difficult one to answer. Personally, I have some skepticism around these models as their origins are vague and most are not adopting an "open data" approach or even an open binary approach (freeware) for distribution. I understand that the concern from the makers is that publicly talking about how the sausage is made makes the software less effective, but it's hard to validate that the people behind these models are providing the service as intended and that they aren't doing anything with the data being sent to them for "protection." There's no assurances that they aren't training models off the data artists send in themselves, for example, or any guarantees to how that data will be used for training. So it's kind of a "miss" for me, unless there's a project someone is aware of that is both open-source and open-data (I find that 'open-source' in the AI field is a hugely misleading moniker, as AI follows a "data is king" philosophy and the program that trains the models is inherently less important as a result.)