Son of the Sky @caelumrising - Tumblr Blog

nosferatu? no. tuferatu. no es mi problema.

no mi circo no mis feratus

My boss was like “Do you have any idea how much money we’re losing” like who cares, it’s not like they would give it to me otherwise

desinteresse

Have our investors tried making coffee at home and not eating out so much?

bombing

no your honor I absolutely can make my case like an adult. first things first, fuck the defendant and fuck his family too. secondly,

bythestardoggedmoon

drdaanvondutch

an old con gag that will always be funny is someone cosplaying spy from tf2 in a group of people and they've got a different cosplay taped to their face to blend in

imgonnaeatthatglitter

afurioushawk

Euros over here for the World Cup discovering we were right about this

archaeocoyote

emmacandle

god i love trans womens voices

emmacandle

like idc if shes voice trained or not or somewhere in between hearing a trans womans voice is so lovely and warm it lifts my spirits and makes me feel at home trans women i love it when you speak keep doing that

godkissedme

Maybe the self is not discovered but slowly made habitable

ace-disgrace-on-the-case

I think “gamers” don’t deserve Early Access, tbh

ace-disgrace-on-the-case

Is early access an excuse to release an unfinished product sometimes? Yea, for sure

But like. Functionally it serves as a way for live experience testing to be done on a game. It’s a way to dial it in on what people want, and on how to best make the game.

This means that, stars above, you don’t need to fucking review bomb it the second there’s a problem, you have avenues for giving feedback, stop saying the game is doomed because there’s been one bad update ffs

This brought to you by the embarassing state of people talking about both Slay the Spire 2 and Deep Rock Galactic: Rogue Core

im-a-luxury--few-can-afford

the average person's opinion can now reach media Creators with unprecedented ease and holy fuck does the average person have terrible game dev opinions

fleshengine

hang on where's the

bark-barkley

I WANT TO LOOK AT THINGS MADE BY HUMAN BEINGS

softwetmoss

And also occasionally by pufferfish

lizardsfromspace

Remember early on in the AI boom where people were asking if the same woman appearing in generated images all the time meant there was a "digital cryptid" and then it turns out that AI just inexplicably gets stuck on stuff and keeps making it over and over and

lizardsfromspace

AI Central Casting is expanding I see

sayorithot

hm yes the mysterious handy tool for unusual home adventures with a twist my favorite device

gyarutau

Haha yeah man thats- youre gonna call who?

broken-horn-of-equius

The STRANGERRRRRR

parakeet

You will not die at the hands of quicksand. Ask me how I know this

bearthethirdwheel

Please, how do you know this?

parakeet

quicksand does not have any hands

frankensteins-mt-dew

hinoneko

*sigh* fine, fine, i'll be the new doctor who showrunner. bring me two twinks, britain's tallest woman, and 1000 pounds worth of alumininamian foil

sztupy

A German regional court has ruled that Google is directly liable for the content of its AI search overviews. According to the court, previou

ayeforscotland

Let’s fucking go

made-in-manetheren

This is HUGE.

1. The court holds Google responsible for statements made by its AI, considering them Google's statements (search engines have limited liability for results in their engine as they're the words of other sites/companies/people), meaning when their AI lies/hallucinates they're liable for the defamation/harm resulting from those statements.

2. Google's defense that customers are generally aware of the lack of reliability and are responsible for fact checking was dismissed. As the court pointed out, that would "significantly diminish" AI Search's stated purpose and it can't be distinguished from Google's business practices/statements as a search tool.

3. Studies have found about 91% of Google's everyday AI responses are accurate, leaving millions of searches per HOUR with potential liability for falsehoods. 56% of correct responses weren't supported by the sources the AI listed. Both of which mean Google is now liable for a LOT more AI "errors."

4. Google was held liable for 80% of court costs in this case and this precedent is expected to reverberate around the world. This is a massive shift from the 3rd-party search provider role Google has previously played and it comes right as they've tied ALL searches to their AI search.

TL;DR Google reeeeeally stepped in it this time.

alianoralacanta

5. If the words are Google's, this solidifies the position of universities who demand that all answers from AI are fully cited. If all the in-line citations now have to be (Google, 2026), that's going to make it obvious when someone's trying to use Google as a source. There's still the difficulty with people who are academically dishonest by trying to pass off the AI writing as their own. 6. 91% accuracy is officially too low to use as a source of references, which means the AI can't be used as a source of references either. This makes it less legitimate for such purposes than Wikipedia of all places (Wikipedia might need date/time proof of when it was accessed for the reference to be valid, but at least it is possible to prove the link existed at a particular date and time). 7. This will help encourage the rollout of courses on how to avoid AI search for students who need academic accuracy, because it's statistically not good enough to use. 8. This strengthens the case intellectual property authors have against Google in the EU, as this is proof that an intellectual property transfer took place.