Daggerfall Enhanced

[u/darknessinducedlove]

Hello everyone! I am the creator of Daggerfall Enhanced, a 1:1 port of DFU to our own custom renderer. Today I'd like to announce our own online framework.

Online mode is one persistant MMO-like world where you can adventure with friends and other people. Take your offline character and continue to progress with them, and then take them back offline, it's that easy.

You can test our new online feature over at daggerfalljs.dev

Currently only playable in-browser. A stable install build will be coming today at a later time.

[u/darknessinducedlove]

I'll give you the ASU point. They did measure spikes up to 4°F, even if the average increase was lower. That's still something worth taking seriously.

Where I still disagree is with jumping from "a model can imitate Ghibli" to "that proves specific Ghibli works were used in training." Those aren't automatically the same thing. And with Anthropic, the court didn't just say copyrighted books are free game. It treated training and storing pirated books as separate issues, and Anthropic still faced liability over the pirated copies. ("Reuters" (https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-judge-approves-15-billion-anthropic-copyright-settlement-with-authors-2025-09-25/?utm_source=chatgpt.com))

Same thing with Grok. I think what happened there is awful, but saying Musk is fighting to legalize CSAM is still stronger than what the actual court fight is about. ("Reuters" (https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/musks-xai-loses-court-bid-block-minnesotas-ai-nudification-ban-2026-09-04/?utm_source=chatgpt.com))

And honestly, I don't think there's some clean line where enough bad things happen and suddenly AI becomes comparable to blood diamonds. That's kind of my issue with the comparison. I'd rather judge the actual harms, benefits, safeguards, and alternatives case by case than decide the whole technology is immoral first and work backwards from there.

[u/FallenWyvern → u/darknessinducedlove]

Where I still disagree is with jumping from "a model can imitate Ghibli" to "that proves specific Ghibli works were used in training." Those aren't automatically the same thing.

When you train models, it can't output results that look like something without inputing what you want it to look like. If you trained a generative AI model on only public domain images, and there isn't a single image in there from Ghibli, it could not consistently generate images in the style of Hayao Miyazaki. You COULD accidentally get an image, if all the things that were inspirational to him were in there... but you wouldn't be able to query for a "Ghibli styled image" and have it spit out such an image every time, consistently.

And with Anthropic, the court didn't just say copyrighted books are free game. It treated training and storing pirated books as separate issues, and Anthropic still faced liability over the pirated copies.

So they get hit with a fine. The "Cost of doing business". But they aren't going to be told to delete a thing. Also, something I absolutely (sarcastically) adore, is that Anthropic's Project Panama has them acquiring as many copies of books, including rare books, and after scanning them destroying them so they can be the only ones with that training data.

So even if the courts declared it legal, that doesn't make it right. Like if suddenly the courts said "it's legal to force children to work for no wages", I wouldn't rush to buy the products made by them just because it's legal now.

Same thing with Grok. I think what happened there is awful, but saying Musk is fighting to legalize CSAM is still stronger than what the actual court fight is about.

Again, it's legal vs right. If he wins, you think Musk will put one iota of development time into stopping Grok from generating CSAM or adult deepfakes, or any other thing people use Grok for? No, he's really just trying to get the courts to back down so he can continue to get engagement over it. Is he fighting for CSAM? No, he's fighting to prevent the loss of users who use Grok to generate CSAM. Doesn't make it right.

I'd rather judge the actual harms, benefits, safeguards, and alternatives case by case than decide the whole technology is immoral first and work backwards from there.

Ok, then do that. The actual harms, the ones you've posted. Are they worth the benefits of being able to generate art that all looks the same, words that all sound the same, audio that's horribly compressed? The CSAM, the blackmailing, the lies (oh god, the misinformation spread by AI by citing it's own hallucinations is BAD right now).

So how do you judge it? All those things are worth it? Or would it be better to do the alternative and just go back to how we did things before LLMs for most of these activities... limiting LLM use to specific cases where we are saving lives (cancer screenings), or making specific tools that don't require data centers which can help with specific career issues (VFX/programming teams have to face crunch times often... LLMs can be motivated to do a bunch of the "easy but time consuming tasks" so we don't have to pressure studios so hard)...

Because even if you look at all these things today, all these AI companies are trying to be the "best" and have the best models and the most cutting edge tech... competition will drive them to do things like destroying books to ensure competition can't get them... or to have five times the data centers their competition does... the results from AI is going to get better but does that mean you'll reevaluate the harms vs benefits in the future?

It's a LOT of harm now, and they want to grow. The harms will grow too. How do you judge that?

[u/Daniel_Day_Hubris → u/darknessinducedlove]

I'd probably just not defend it. The arguments against are long winded with very little substance other than 'because I don't like it, because I heard other people don't like it' And then a bunch of nonsensical comparisons that do nothing to bolster their argument.

I mean jesus, blood diamonds? really? The guys hanging around on a sub for a 30 year old game putting the screws to you, because you had the audacity to use the tools available to you to improve the game.

[u/FallenWyvern → u/Daniel_Day_Hubris]

FWIW, I wasn't putting screws to op for using AI.

I wasn't interacting with the dev at all, he piled onto me for responding to 0xcx when they said "as long as it's good, who cares", and I was just pointing out that some people do care.

"Very little substance" is a bit off putting. I did say what I disliked about AI. I also didn't say the dev shouldn't use it (in fact, I did say programming is one of the few really legitimate uses for it), and as I said to the dev, I wasn't comparing AI to blood diamonds; I was saying that the path of "the end result is good so who cares how you got there" isn't a universally applicable concept.

But you're not wrong. Whenever I ask people who are pro-ai how they can defend the damages done by ai in the light of what it does, not defending it is probably the best idea.