The Goals of this Community
Greetings friends! I noticed Lemmy didn't have a New World community, so I made one.
Reddit is...what it is, and the official Discord discussions are a flood of bug reports and unproductive complaints. The goal of this community is just the opposite: productive discussion, interesting content, and top-shelf memes. New World has had a tumultuous history full of anger and disappointment; another forum showcasing those unfiltered feelings would be redundant and unenjoyable.
Need to air a grievance about a frustrating game system? Want to vent about how bad your favorite weapon feels now? Do so, but do so productively. Posts or comments like "bow is trash" or "target lock is aimbot" can be found everywhere else. Let's make this place different.
Why does the weapon feel bad? What are your ideas on what devs could do to make a given system less frustrating? Center your comments on your perspective. As an example, on Aeternum launch day I kept seeing objectively-framed, vague statements like "the UI is garbage now," so imagine my surprise when I loved the changes they made.
Another goal is to avoid unhelpful dev-bashing. Blanket statements claiming "the devs don't know what they're doing" aren't productive. What could they be doing?
Lastly, a key goal is civility and maturity. "Can you not read?" might be a sick burn in the middle school lunchroom, but it's lame and juvenile to functioning adults. If you can't resist ad hominem attacks and insults that terminate meaningful discussion, go somewhere else.
This community is about quality over quantity. Let's work toward that.
What was your least favorite weapon to fight against in PvP last time you played New World?
I'll go first: Rapier. Bow and musket often mainly used rapier as an escape tool, and the stun caused by the parry was ridiculously effective at shutting down multiple melee combatants at a time, just when you thought you'd finally caught them. Looking forward to finding new reasons to hate rapiers in this expansion.
Agreed. The problem is that so many (including in this thread) argue that training AI models is no different than training humans—that a human brain inspired by what it sees is functionally the same thing.
My response to why there is still an ethical difference revolves around two arguments: scale, and profession.
Scale: AI models’ sheer image output makes them a threat to artists where other human artists are not. One artist clearly profiting off another’s style can still be inspiration, and even part of the former’s path toward their own style; however, the functional equivalent of ten thousand artists doing the same is something else entirely. The art is produced at a scale that could drown out the original artist’s work, without which such image generation wouldn’t be possible in the first place.
Profession. Those profiting from AI art, which relies on unpaid scraping of artists’s work for data sets, are not themselves artists. They are programmers, engineers, and the CEOs and stakeholders who can even afford the ridiculous capital necessary in the first place to utilize this technology at scale. The idea that this is just a “continuation of the chain of inspiration from which all artists benefit” is nonsense.
As the popular adage goes nowadays, “AI models allow wealth to access skill while forbidding skill to access wealth.”
I was banned from r/LateStageCapitalism for politely supporting a post with this reasoning. I pointed out that Trump would make the conflict even worse for innocents, and voting third-party to make a statement against neoliberal Democrat rule (which is bad) is a position that, in this moment, only the least-vulnerable in America can take when there is a risk of outright christo-fascism threatening the least-enfranchised.
Banned. “This is a socialist sub.” Proceeded to see a post from a mod openly mocking anyone who entertained lesser-of-two-evils arguments; they sounded like a sneering teenager. Over there, it’s all theory and no parsing of theory with reality.