@Pavel said in AI Megathread:

Obviously this is the correct course, but basically every institutional use that I have personally seen has been lacking in the latter section.

Which is a problem in terms of work culture, not the tool, yes but when you’re relying on the tool to make decisions that directly impact a person’s likelihood of getting a degree, or getting/keeping a job? I don’t think we should be using, much less relying on, imperfect tools for in those instances.

This is my problem, yes. However, I attribute it to the tool as much as the work culture.

These things portray themselves as far more reliable than they actually are in practice. The UX also lends toward this reliance, displaying results like “31% likely to be AI”. That, again, is giving the misleading impression of a highly precise and reliable tool. And unlike a plagiarism detector, which can point you to the original, these tools are much more opaque.

You don’t have to look far on substack to find tons of authors (pissed off about the recent addition of Pangram to the site) pointing out false positives in their own work. Even a comparatively low false-positive rate can create massive implications when used at large scales.

@Tez said in AI Megathread:

3 out of 5 did okay? They are tools to use alongside human reasoning. But demonstrably they aren’t garbage.

One of the tools you’re saying did “okay” in the first article is the same one the second article raises concerns about. Do they sometimes work? Sure. Are they reliable across a wide variety of use cases? No.

FYI, AI detectors are still kinda crappy.

Can AI Detectors Be Trusted? The Authors Guild Put Five of Them to the Test

“Our test confirms that while a couple of AI detection tools accurately identify human-authored text, some commonly used consumer-facing AI detection tools are wildly inaccurate, which presents a major risk for authors. Moreover, these tools change constantly—updated models, shifting benchmarks, evolving AI outputs—and their accuracy at any given moment cannot be assumed.”

Pangram Flagged My Own Writing as AI

Regarding false positive benchmarks: “that benchmark tests pure human text and pure AI text under controlled conditions. It doesn’t describe real-world use cases”

@Juniper said in Age Verification & Games:

TBH I’m not worried about minors infesting my spaces because they’re not interested in the level of effort that is required to get invested in this stuff

I don’t think that’s true at all. My oldest plays on discord with a bunch of other teens. They are aware of MUSHing; have helped me playtest a few things on Ares. They write fanfiction. My youngest likes Dwarf Fortress and clunky RPGs grafted onto Starcraft, neither of which is that far afield from MUDs.

They are not allowed to play MU*s because we have a family rule about playing online with strangers. I’m not sure I would encourage it regardless, but the level of effort isn’t really a barrier in the slightest.

@Yam said in Age Verification & Games:

Gosh, are there any NON 18+ games out there? I figure maybe some MUDs?

A quick scan of Ares games shows at least one game that’s 16+, a couple that have no age policy at all, and two that are a bit unclear (like they say no TS with underage players in one place but in another place say 18+ only, so… which is it?).

@Kestrel said in Age Verification & Games:

So if you wanna have, say, a LotR-themed MU* that’s explicitly child-friendly, that’s fine, but you need to commit.

I agree with all this 100%. I agree with the idea that family-friendly text-based games aren’t inherently bad (with the right safeguards), but that doesn’t mean that all games can or should be family-friendly. Folks are entitled to want an adults-only experience for all the reasons you listed. Game-runners are entitled to only want adults on their games just to avoid the extra responsibility and potential liability. (I fall into that camp myself, as a game-runner.) If you are going to allow minors on an online game, you have additional responsibilities - both ethically and legally.

@Jennkryst said in Age Verification & Games:

Extremely controversial opinion: Minors on games aren’t inherently bad.

I don’t think it’s that controversial in theory, but in practice it’s a bit more complicated. In that specific case they obviously knew that the player was a minor with their parent’s permission, but I have no freaking clue how I, as a game-runner, would figure that out.

In terms of the broader tech sphere, I think non-sucking parental controls would be a better solution to the issue than this crap, but there are problems: a) it’s really hard to make something robust and standardized, b) there’s no profit motive for them to do so, especially when c) there’s a perverse incentive for the age-gate systems in data harvesting.

@Pavel said in Age Verification & Games:

So if a MU wanted to connect with, say, Yoti ID and could get a token from them that “the person you’re asking about has demonstrated to us that they are over 18” that would be a different question, and I’d encourage such a thing.

1. That’s assuming you trust Yoti. Do you really want to give THEM your government ID? ETA: Are you comfortable with them being able to build a database of all the sites that ask: “Hey, is Faraday over 18?” And then sell said database to marketers, the government, or heaven-knows-who?

2. Services like that cost money, putting them out of reach for your average free-to-play online RP game/group.

@Kestrel Yeah, one of my kids told me about seeing “RPs” on Scratch of all places several years ago. Their friends play via discord - only with people they know, but it’s a short hop from there into other forms of text-based gaming with strangers.

As a parent, this stuff concerns me greatly. People can bark about “just use parental controls”, but I wonder how many of them have actually tried to keep a kid safe on the internet these days.

Even so, I take issue with the current laws because they are a massive invasion of privacy and a security risk. There have already been instances of leaked documents and other identifying info. It will only get worse. The anonymity of the internet certainly has its problems, but tying your RL governmental identity to every platform you visit is a free speech and information nightmare.

@Muscle-Car said in Age Verification & Games:

especially in this hobby the chances of encountering underage players is slim

Underage players have been playing in this hobby since the 90s. With the resurgence of TTRPGs among teenagers, I wouldn’t be surprised if some number of them stumble into text-based games.

But regardless of whether they’re there or not, MUs most likely do (or will) fall under some of the recent age verification laws imposed by places like Texas and Australia. EU regulation is probably coming soon. A “I’m over 18 I swear” tickbox is not sufficient under these regulations.

Even big companies are struggling to figure out how to conform to these rules. On a MU? Good luck.

@ham I didn’t start the business owner analogy, I was responding to a previous comment. Any kind of RL analogy is going to be flawed because once you meet the people in person you can be like: “Oh no, not Harvey again. I’m out.”

You’re never going to get that same 1-1 correspondence in an online system. What we’ve been talking about is whether staff OWES people that same level of transparency.

I think being transparent is a good way to build trust. I think being cautious around staffers you don’t know is reasonable. I just don’t think “they have no handle therefore they have something to hide” is appropriate or fair. YMMV.

@dvoraen said in Staff Bits Linking Handles:

“ok but who owns the business?” “You don’t need to know.”

I view it more as: “Who owns this business?” “No clue. <shrug>”

Which is honestly how I feel about most businesses. Most places do not plaster their owner’s identity on their front door, and most patrons just don’t care.

There’s nothing wrong with caring. By all means, give your business to a place that you’re not comfortable with. I just reject the notion that not advertising your OOC identity is some kind of shady practice.

@Pavel said in Staff Bits Linking Handles:

NPCs are a different thing, they’re storytelling tools, but if your personal player character is in a position of authority and you are in a position of OOC authority, I do look upon that with askance.

I can understand being wary of that. Heaven knows there have been enough staff shenanigans through the years to warrant such skepticism. But I’ve also been on games where staff PCs were in authority positions and it worked out just fine. I’ve done it myself, though I usually avoid it.

It all depends on the staffer, so I agree it’s nice when you know staff’s reputation. I just prefer if the default “trust-o-meter” is at neutral for someone without an OOC rep rather than “OMG they must have something to hide”.

I still see all of it as kinda separate from Ares player handles. Everyone knew me as Faraday on MUs (from staff char names) looooong before player handles existed. Even on games where staff had wacky themed names, I’d still announce myself in my +finger. And we’ve had alt tracking systems for forever (I already mentioned the auxiliary alt tracker mechanism baked into Ares).

@Roadspike said in Staff Bits Linking Handles:

ut it’s also disingenuous, because you are a staffer, and you’re seeing things through staffer eyes the whole time, and can bring in the weight of staff whenever you want (either through yourself or one of your fellow staffers).

Yeah, it’s always felt icky to me to be “undercover staff”.

I think it’s better for a game when everyone knows who everyone’s alts are, staff included. It just avoids a bunch of particular kinds of drama, and it boosts trust.

And to clarify, when I say that folks don’t owe anyone their OOC identity, I meant across games. Forcing people to share alt info within the same game is different IMHO.

@catzilla I agree with the principle, but you don’t need a player handle to link alts on a game. You can do it with tags.

@bear_necessities said in Staff Bits Linking Handles:

As far as staff having a handle, I prefer to play on games where I know the admin. I do think staff alts should be tagged.

I’m 100% on board with this as well.

@bear_necessities said in Staff Bits Linking Handles:

If you don’t have a handle, you have something to hide, and my brows immediately raise.

As the creator of the handle system, this kind of bothers me. The system was never intended to pressure people into identifying themselves across games. There has been enough stalking, creeping, and other shenanigans in the MU community (and the internet at large) that I don’t think anyone owes anyone else their OOC identity. Ever. Staff included.

That’s why even Ares games have a built-in alternative method for alt tracking that doesn’t require a player handle.

It’s meant to be a fun tool for those who choose to use it. I’m not a fan of it being held against those who don’t.

(Also in practical terms a creeper can just make a new handle, so I’m not sure what it gains you really.)

@Jennkryst I don’t believe that’s accurate. The writers didn’t have a plan for Head Six. She was a Mystery Box because they thought it was cool. Even in a recent interview, RDM was still insisting that the final season writers’ room didn’t want to come out and call them “angels” because they didn’t want to put a name on it and kill the mystery.

There was a copy of the original BSG series bible floating around the internet years ago. Some relevant snippets:

Our show is built on the idea that a science fiction series can employ ground-breaking special effects, dynamic cinematography, realistic situations, believable characters and explore contemporary social and political issues without sacrificing dramatic tension or excitement.

(Our new) approach is to introduce realism into what has heretofore been an aggressively unrealistic genre.

We will eschew the usual stories about parallel universes, time-travel, mind-control, evil twins, God-like powers and all the other cliches of the genre.

My favorite aspects of the series were the things mentioned above. The fact that they extinguish the fire in the pod by venting it to space. The running count of people left alive in the fleet. The time they spend worrying about supplies. The commentary on social issues and moral dilemmas. Even most of Head Six’s original shenanigans could be attributed just to Baltar being insane (like when he points to the place they should strike on that one moon and then Six attributes it to “God guiding his hand”; they deliberately left it vague enough that maybe he just got lucky.)

So yes, quite clearly they ENDED UP where you describe, but I think there’s a ton of evidence that this was something they backed themselves into, and not a clear plan from the start.

@Jennkryst for me, there’s a big difference between “religious themes” and literal on-camera angels. I also think some of the giant plot holes you pointed out were theme-breaking. But of course reasonable people can disagree on such things, and none of that stopped me from enjoying the show. i just would have enjoyed it even more (probably in the same storytelling tier as B5) if they’d had a better plan from the start.

@Aria Yes, B5 was the best.

IMHO BSG fell into the same “Mystery Box Storytelling” pit that Lost did at around the same timeframe. Set up a mystery, and hope you can come up with a satisfying resolution by the time it matters. The trouble is that’s NEVER been how satisfying mysteries work. Seat-of-your-pants storytelling has its place, but not in a mystery. @Jennkryst is exactly right about how that wrecked the plot. They painted themselves into such a corner that the only way out was divine intervention.

BUT I still love the show. Low-tech sci-fi military stuff is my jam. The characters are great. The writing in any individual episode is usually stellar, especially in the early seasons.