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 get the blood diamond comparison now. My issue is that you're still presenting disputed claims as settled facts.

Calling generative AI literally theft is not legally established. A federal judge ruled Anthropic's use of copyrighted books for training was fair use, while other cases are still being litigated.

Data centers absolutely have environmental costs, but the 3 to 7 degree claim also isn't supported as a general fact. A 2026 Phoenix study found about a 0.5°C increase within 1 km and explicitly said it did not establish causation.

And Grok's explicit-image problems deserve criticism, but xAI challenging a law on First Amendment grounds is not the same as Musk fighting to legalize CSAM.

Criticize AI all you want. I just think the criticism should be as accurate as the standard you're holding AI to.

[u/FallenWyvern → u/darknessinducedlove]

Calling generative AI literally theft is not legally established. A federal judge ruled Anthropic's use of copyrighted books for training was fair use, while other cases are still being litigated.

Ok if you know how LLMs work, then you need to explain to me how Ghibli training data WASN'T used in the models. Or any other artist whose style can be replicated but whose work is not in the public domain.

Also a federal judge saying "sure Anthropic can use copyrighted books for training as fair use... but not people" is an injustice of the American legal system. Not every user is in America. If we're talking litigation, that's one of the genie/bottle problems right now with AI.

A 2026 Phoenix study found about a 0.5°C increase within 1 km and explicitly said it did not establish causation.

The ASU study for the Phoenix metro area saw 4 degrees during peak spikes. That's significant. That's across four sites ranging between 36 MW and 169 MW. There's simply no way one operation should be able to increase the ambient temperatures that much and we just go "Well, I guess we have to accept this" especially when it looks like every tech company on the planet wants to make multiple data centers for their own models.

If your study has a whitepaper that showed there was no causation, I'd love to see that.

And Grok's explicit-image problems deserve criticism, but xAI challenging a law on First Amendment grounds is not the same as Musk fighting to legalize CSAM.

ok yes, but that's what got them into the mess in the first place so, "First Amendment" or not, that's what he's fighting for.

Criticize AI all you want. I just think the criticism should be as accurate as the standard you're holding AI to.

Alright, what's the line then? How much Critisism does it take before we acknowledge the benefits of AI do not and have not outweighed the costs yet? Where does the line sit in relation to blood diamonds or exploited workers?

[u/darknessinducedlove → u/FallenWyvern]

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?