I have the same panel and a similar experience. It is the best display that I’ve ever used.

I often accidentally turn the monitor off because my desktop is just a black background and so it appears to be off if there isn’t something being displayed.

The HDR could possibly be brighter, but the OLED blacks are worth the diminished peak brightness (which is brighter than is comfortable in a dark room).

I have around 12,000 hours and I have some minor blue channel image retention in the crosshair area, it looks like a small bar across the center of the screen, but it is only noticeable if I’m displaying a pure blue color (like when I’m looking for image retention). In actual usage I don’t notice it and the peak brightness is probably a little lower. I usually run at 60-80% brightness depending on room lighting conditions so I have a lot of overhead before I’d notice the loss of brightness.

I’m sure that joke kills at recess

You think the world would be improved if we started throwing people in prison en mass because they use AI to make background art for their video game?

This is an improvement in your eyes?

The irony of using a meme made by someone else and made with copyrighted artwork to attack AI’s lack of creativity is rich.

You’re using art and ‘return on investment’ in the same paragraph. You’re not describing art, you’re describing an industry.

People will draw pictures with charcoal out of a fire because they feel the compulsion to make art. People who want to make art will make art even if the world is burning. AI tools are not going to kill art.

But, like every technological innovation, AI tools will reduce the number of people in the industry. This happens with all technology. Yes, it’s disruptive and displaces a lot of workers who need to work to earn a living. This is just a fact of the situation we are in, it is not something that you’re going to stop by trying to convince people to not use the technology.

You can’t put this back in the bottle when anyone with an undergraduate understanding of linear algebra and a python interpreter can create new image generation models on a whim. A few TB of images and a few weeks of a single GPU’s time will train a model.

What is the endgame here? If you were dictator of the world, how would you even propose ‘fixing’ this? It’s one thing to be angry, but point that anger in the direction of something that is actually possible to change.

It’s ironic you chose to compare it to computers because we’ve seen that the generational decline in mathematical ability has fallen off a cliff as people now don’t even have to think about how numbers work. We have college graduates with zero reading comprehension or writing ability because they’ve never had to independently develop those skills. We have vanishing competency in critical analysis and the ability to carry a dialogue at levels that were considered natural and intrinsic a handful of generations ago. Everywhere we see the constant erosion of the capability of achieving objectives that are less than a generation removed from us. We’re not talking about forgetting how to knap flint or the decline of the buggy whip maker. We’re talking about the intrinsic capacity of the human mind to engage with the world suddenly becoming an investment on which there is no chance of return in a single human lifetime, because there is no economically sustainable path from raw novice to professional.

Sure, I agree with that in broad strokes.

That doesn’t mean that I’m going to get angry on the Internet that people are using computers in their business. Or driving cars instead of hiring a horse a buggy team, or eating food from a grocery store instead of driving a plow in their own fields.

Technology moves forward and we have to deal with the consequences. Look at ways that we can deal with the consequences if you want to actually make a difference. It is a waste of time to think that you’re going to shame the entire world into not using this technology that we’ve discovered.

strawman

Are you just using that word ironically because I said it or are you actually unable to identify the fallacy that’s being used or do you need people to write /s for you to understand sarcasm?

Maybe you should ask the AI to read comments to you if you’re unable to comprehend basic written English. Here, since your confederates are similarly unable to read I’ve already asked an AI to explain for you:

You’d think, as a science enjoyer, you’d know better than to conflate the process of testing and forming conclusions based on observation and academia.

You’re murdering that strawman, bud.

You’re attacking the AI bubble, and investments in the services side of things that exceed the revenue that they’re producing. Yeah, the investment in LLMs that NVIDIA is the center of are dumb and a bubble.

The topic of the post, top comment and my reply is about the experimenting with AI in pilot programs. The post is full of people attacking Take-Two for trying AI, which is what I’m replying to.

You’re over here attacking AI companies for investing in a technology that nobody is using (other than Take-Two, apparently) as if that argument has anything to do with the topic at all.

Or, better idea, stop using AI for creative work

People can use whatever tools they want, if someone wants to be a great oil painter they can do that, if someone wants to learn how to draw on a digital tablet and use photoshop to edit it then let them do that, if someone wants to use diffusion models and Photoshop then let them do that.

You do not lose personal fulfillment in a thing that you genuinely enjoy because someone else is enjoying their own thing. This is not about creative expression. Your argument is an economic argument at base, not one about artistic expression.

If you can’t afford to pay real people to create genuinely human artistic works, you’re a terrible business person and deserve to fail.

An AI tool is not going to produce higher quality work than a professional human. Anyone who is gutting their business because they think AI is going to replace creative workers will fail because they’re making the wrong bet. The tools simply cannot replace human creativity.

At the same time, the framing that any use of AI tools to save labor is inherently bad is simply a denialist position. These tools exist and people are using them, this is the reality that we live in. Yes, it causes disruption in the labor markets this is unavoidable.

Think about how much you feel for the jobs of the Computers. Remember them? The people who used to earn their living calculating math problems… hundreds of thousands of professional people who had advanced degrees and worked their whole life in the field were suddenly replaced by some silicon and electricity. Are you boycotting the Field Effect Transistor because it decimated an entire industry?

Why do you even acknowledge the rights of digital artists or engineers to own intellectual property? After all, they’re using (by this logic) the terrible digital design tools, the software that replaced an entire industry of Drafters and support artists. Because of that software, nobody is going to hire a team of drafters, with their college educations and high salary expectations. Instead they just buy an AutoCAD license for less than a single worker would earn in a week.

Attacking a technology because it causes disruption in the labor market is pointless. If you’re living in a country where this disruption is causing serious problems, then you can understand the value of creating a social safety net in order to protect everyone from the next unforeseen circumstance/technology/disruption.

If you listen to the ai-bad crowd, screw science.

You can just skip the experimentation and go directly to conclusions. Testing things is for idiots, the real enlightened among us already have the conclusion, they just need to gather the right observations to prove themselves right.

The post button did you dirty.

So why aren’t EGS exclusives, which only takes a 12% cut and the dev of such exclusives also get a massive monetary incentive to be exclusive to the platform from Epic, not any cheaper than their contemporaries on any other marketplace? 🤔

I don’t know, I can only speculate. EGS makes a lot of decisions where they lose money on purpose in order to try to grow their business so their practices don’t always fit neatly into a simple economics model. For example, giving away games for free isn’t a rational business decision on the face, but they’ve decided that the future benefits will outweigh the costs.

If I had to guess a single reason. I would say that this is likely because AAA games have all essentially coalesced around specific price points. If a game is selling for 59.99 everywhere, then you’d certainly try to sell your game for 59.99 also. If you’re selling with 12% fees ($52.80/unit) and they’re selling with 30% fees ($42/unit) then your company is making more money and you’re in a more favorable position should the competition try to lower prices to take your market share.

Selling for less than the market prices wouldn’t make sense and the market price for all of this is primarily based on how Steam operates. Since Steam is the largest distributor, all price decisions are going to be primarily based on a market where prices include the 30% fee because the largest volume of, most, games’ sales are through Steam.

This lawsuit may not go anywhere, but there is no world where we, the consumer, are hurt by Steam being challenged on their pricing model. The only outcomes here are pro-consumer and pro-indy developer (the people most price sensitive and so most affected by these fees as a percentage of total revenue).

Maybe, but this doesn’t hurt the customer, this hurts the people wanting the profits, mostly the game publishers.

Trying to argue that adding a 30% tariff to a good doesn’t cause the price to go up is nonsense. It is basic economics that a good which costs more will need to sell for more than a good that costs less.

I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention to geopolitics, but this argument has already played out in the real world and to the surprise of nobody, raising costs via tariffs raise the costs to the end consumer.

Your games cost more because of fees like this.

This price pressure freezes out smaller developers who, if they didn’t need to pay 30% of their gross revenue in fees, would otherwise have been able to run a successful business. Those small developers, which don’t exist, are not making games and that means less variety in the market places and more domination by the large AAA developers.

I read the article and I’m not sure what I’m missing.

Their claim is that Valve’s practices, such as the 30% platform fee are anti-competitive. The winners of the lawsuit would be the class of ‘People who have purchased games from Steam’ and the money that the lawsuit recovers would be paid to the class members.

I can’t see the downside of possibly winning some money and having cheaper games on Steam.

I’m surprised and also not really.

It’s exactly the same line of thinking where someone else is given more rights over a thing than the person who owns it.

It would be like the architect who drew the plans for your home getting a court order to seize your home because you installed extra cabinets that were not on his plans.

Who is they? Where did capitalism make this announcement? Who was the representative of Capitalism that said that it is okay to crash the world economy?

This sounds like conspiracy nonsense.

Now you’re suggesting a price fixing conspiracy among the two largest RAM producers, that’s quite a big claim so you surely have pretty solid evidence to support that position.

Being cynical isn’t evidence and calling people names isn’t evidence.

Yes, that would be true if they had a true monopoly.

However, in an open market when a producer offers their goods for higher than the market rate, another producer can steal their business by simply offering the products at market rate. If Samsung decides to try to price gouge then customers can buy RAM from Micron, the only time that this isn’t possible is if there is more demand than their is supply (i.e. Micron has no stock) in which case, microeconomics tells us that the market price will increase.

That is true, but also not what is happening.