SKG doesn’t specify how companies need to solve the problem, only that games need to continue to function after the company stops supporting them.

For some games (e.g. Assassin’s Creed), that could be as simple as disabling the online aspect and having a graceful fallback. For others, that could mean letting people self-host it. Or they can provide documentation for the server API and let the community build their own server. Or they can move it to a P2P connection.

Game companies have options. All SKG says is that if I’ve purchased something, I should be able to keep using it after support ends.

It isn’t even unique to AI, human operators get things wrong all the time. Any time you put something involving natural language between the user/customer and completing a task, there’s a significant risk of it going wrong.

The only time I want hands-free anything is when driving, and I’d rather pull over than deal with voice activation unless it’s an emergency and I can’t stop driving.

I don’t get this fascination with voice activation. If you asked me to describe my dream home if money was no object and tech was perfect, voice activation would not be on the list. When I watch Iron Man or Batman talking to a computer, I don’t see some pinnacle of efficiency, I see inefficiency. I can type almost as fast as I can speak, and I can make scripts or macros to do things far faster than I can describe them to a computer. Shortcuts are far more efficient than describing the operation.

If a product turns to voice activation, that tells me they’ve given up on the UX.

We need two things:

1. much shorter copyright and patent durations, like 14 and 5 years respectively (14 comes from OG copyright duration)
2. stronger enforcement of copyright to protect creators from AI stealing their work

They should happen in that order, and ideally copyright would only be awarded to individuals (or perhaps specifically named lists of individuals, with some reasonable cap), not corporations. The current system is absolutely bonkers.

I hate it when management comes asking something like, “how are we planning to use AI?” instead of “what tools would help you be more productive?” The first puts me on the defensive, and my answer is “we’re already using various forms of AI, from machine learning to features our tools have,” and that isn’t a productive conversation. The second question is more useful, since I’ll mention things the asker could actually help with, like feedback from other parts of the company, more budget to hire and promote, etc.

AI might be the right solution, and it might not, but you won’t get that answer if you ask the wrong question.

That makes no sense, surely everyone has invested in green energy through workplace retirement plans, no?