It's just personal preference.

I learnt it from a chef in Japan in 2009, and I assume he had been doing it for many years at that time.

Generally, that's something done at a sushi train restaurant where the dishes won't have wasabi in them already. I'm guessing these notes are for a sushi restaurant where the chef prepares the sushi specifically for each customer, so if you wanted wasabi they'd put it in the sushi itself.

They do. There are plenty of indie Devs.

The reason why everyone doesn't do it is because it requires significant capital to be able to support a dev team through production for a number of years.

Not to mention they will still have to deal with publishers potentially fucking them over, as shown with the Helldivers 2 PSN fiasco.

"Pokemon with guns on PC."

That's a great sales pitch.

Creation Engine is based on Gamebryo.

It was 2000 shares, he's already sold like 50k in the last year. Nothing sinister about it.

TLOU is criminally low on this list. Easily top 3, and personally, I'd put it at 1.

Mmmm, nah, I think that sometimes, people are stupid.

Marcel LUX III SARL

Company wholly owned by the EQT group, a publicly traded global investment organization. This is just going to lead to more enshittification.

Pay 44 billion for a brand, then change it. Pure genius.

Hi, it's me the author!

First of all, thanks for reading.

In the article I explain that it is not exactly what authors do, we reading and writing are an inherently human activity and the consumption and processing of massive amounts of data (far more than a human with a photographic memory could process in a hundred million lifetimes) is a completely different process to that.

I also point out that I don't have a problem with LLMs as a concept, and I'm actually excited about what they can do, but that they are inherently different from humans and should be treated as such by the law.

My main point is that authors should have the ability to decree that they don't want their work used as training data for megacorporations to profit from without their consent.

So, yes in a way it is about money, but the money in question being the money OpenAI and Meta are making off the backs of millions of unpaid and often unsuspecting people.

I'm actually surprised by the comments in here. This technology is incredibly disruptive to authors, if they are correct that their intellectual property has been misused by these companies to train LLMs, then they absolutely should have the right to prevent that.

You can both be pro AI and advancement, and still respect creators intellectual rights and the right to not have all content stolen by megacorporations and used by them to create profits while decimating entire industries.

This is a strawman.

You cannot act as though feeding LLMs data is remotely comparable to reading.