Messages

Spoiler

I restarted the game several times. I got the sphere sparkle once but never had the machine come out until I tried it with the order you provided. It seems to be quite fragile, but I'm sure you can fix it.

[close]

Ok, I finally managed to finish the game

Spoiler

I have to say, it is REALLY buggy. It's like the Apollo 13 startup sequence. You have to do things in the absolutely correct order or it won't work. Even after starting the machine and looking through the telescope, when clicking the red X nothing happened. Only after leaving the telescope and looking through it again, I saw the creature.
Most hotspots are missing a label.
Also there is the bug with the broken walking view (blue cup) and a telephone appears for every interaction.

I had no clue what was going on in the game. It was lacking a proper introduction (only read here in this thread afterwards that the PC's dad has died and you take care of what is left)
I also didn't understand the end.

The graphics are very good, I like the style, the color change in the end adds to the atmosphere. I hope you will have some time to work more on the game, because it seems to be very interesting.

[close]

Spoiler

The lamp on top of the machine blinked once and I read all dialog options of the bookshelf. In which area of the sky is the hotspot supposed to be?

[close]

Spoiler

I was able to activate the machine and get the dialog options but I don't see a new hotspot in the sky.

[close]

Now to see if I can execute in time!

You mean finnish in time

I'm stuck

Spoiler

I entered the code in the machine, moved the knob from one hole to another (for whatever reason) turned the wheel and switched the switch but nothing happens.
It took me quite some time to realize that there are more hotspots than the ones with mouse-over text, so I'm not sure if I missed a hotspot or something.

[close]

Fun "special effect" on the walking view

I completely forgot to give short reviews for each game 

The Year of MAGS

Spoiler

Interesting concept, but without save feature this is useless. I played two month but didn't get any points.

[close]

The Expedition

Spoiler

Nice graphics and good use of frames, but I hate dungeon crawlers and turn-based battle, so...

[close]

The Twilight Zone - The Lost Episode

Spoiler

I've never seen any episode of the Twilight Zone, so I can't say anything in this regard. I like how the frame topic is included not only literally with the TV set, but also figuratively in the story. The game could use a bit of polish here and there.

[close]

I voted for

Spoiler

The Twilight Zone - The Lost Episode

[close]

But even the OED link you shared states it is an abbreviation 

No, it lists it as noun and only states that it originated as abbreviation in the 1940s.

Edit: Snarky was quicker.

Merriam Webster lists it as abbreviation

Spoiler

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/admin

[close]

So yeah, not a real word.

However, Oxford English Dictionary lists it as noun

Spoiler

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/admin?q=admin

[close]

So, definitely a word. Since Wordle is originally British, it makes sense to include the word.

We already discussed that it is quite random what is accepted and what not.

Edit: I got it in 4

Oh, too bad there was only one entry. I'm still going to play it, even without voting.

Ok, this is ridiculous

Wordle 1,438 2/6*

⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

I agree that it is totally ridiculous to use AI and then deny usage.

But I don't understand why you have to justify the reason you are using AI. I mean, it's a tool, and if you decide to use it, you use it. If I make pixel art, and state I did it with Aseprite, do I have to justify why I used it? If you ask, I will certainly explain the benefits of the program, but I don't see a moral obligation here.

And don't get me wrong, I DO see problems with AI (mainly the enormous energy consumption) but I also see lots of useful applications.

I think I get where you're coming from. I mean...it's like having a discussion about junk food and people suddenly start to talk about health. It not like these things are inherently connected right?

Yeah, that's the point - just imagine a conversation people are having about junk food. They are discussing what chains they like, their favourite burgers, etc. and everytime someone says that they tried the a new burger someone will answer "Junkfood is bad for your health. It is made from meat that animals have to suffer for. Fuck junkfood." Is this a nice conversation to have?


(And yes, Ministeck is awesome!)

Btw, what I meant with small print in reference books is, that they will probably explicitly ALLOW transformative works. When books don't state this, legally the content is subject to copyright law (which is quite a complex topic itself).

Congratulations!
I failed today. There are just too many ⬜🟩⬜🟩🟩

And because of so many variables, it will rarely, if ever, arrive at the exact same image twice in a row.

As far as I know, there is a random seed used because otherwise you wouldn't get different results for the same prompt. Computers are super deterministic.

My colleague once wanted to create a picture book for his daughter with illustrations of a personal story. He is good with graphic design but not illustration so he used AI for the pictures. He found it almost impossible to create images in a consistent style and finally ended up with a book that uses another graphic style for each page. (However, from my observation, children care much less for the graphic style of books than adults)

In looking up reference photos, and then drawing your interpretation of those photos, you are creating a transformative work, regardless of how much your drawing closely resembles those original photos.

This is probably derailing this thread a bit, but IMHO this would still be a copyright infringement (depending on license yada yada). I'm sure that books with reference pics for artists have a small print somewhere that tells you what you are allowed to do with the pictures. Taking a random picture from google, without checking license, and doing a paint over, is most likely a copyright violation (and google itself is probably doing a copyright violation by storing and providing the picture in the first place...)

If you change the picture enough so it can't be traced back, it is most likely not a copyright problem anymore. But isn't this what AI does? Can you trace a generated picture back to the source?


It's definitely an interesting question. I think the main problem is, that AI was so suddenly there, that we couldn't ask all those questions and find good answers, yet.

Yes, AI is trained with large datasets. But this is just how human learning also works. I've never been to Egypt but if you asked me to draw a picture of the pyramids and the sphinx, I could probably make a mediocre drawing of it. Why? Because I've seen tons of photos of it throughout my life and I made a model of it in my brain. Would this count as plagiarism? Hardly, I'd say.
Now, if you asked me to make a more realistic drawing, I'd probably do a Google search for pyramids and use the pictures I find there as reference. Is this plagiarism? Most likely, but I dare to say that most people who do graphics have looked up reference pictures before without giving credit. So is this better than AI?

Another example: Imagine an app to look up birds. You take a photo of a bird, upload it, and the app will tell you that the bird is most likely a European robin. This also has to be trained with lots of data of questionable sources. Would you claim here as well that this is all plagiarism and how can people use such a thing? The data is the same, just the output is different.

Misj' mentioned art he did before but I wasn't able to open the profile page to look at older posts. I assume it is because of the ' mark.

What I don't get: don't all traditional human artists train on existing art? I imagine that art teachers will show a bunch of Picasso paintings to their students and tell them "Now do something similar" and people will look at the pictures and copy parts of it or only concepts into new paintings. Heck, even the old masters learned by just copying other paintings.
Why is it different here?

Interesting.

Just for clarification: I was referring to a now deleted post that probably was by a spam bot.