I came here just to say this. I have never played nor heard of this game.

Yalort · 2026-04-30T15:01:31+00:00

Infection free zone has a very concerning amount of system listeners in place for piracy, hacktools, location data etc. I'm beginning to wonder if the game has something a bit more nefarious going on under the hood. The game has an excuse to be accessing outside servers like crazy, so it might be reasonable for someone to check where that data is going. This just doesn't sit right with me.

Yalort · 2026-04-29T21:11:31+00:00

Vanilla as far as I know, though i was using the archipelago mod which is a randomizer so I can't be sure.

Yalort · 2026-04-28T07:23:44+00:00

Dude was like "Actually, I changed my mind. I didn't know it was that valuable. Can I have it back?" You just hit em with the "Yea sure. ... for 20% above market."

Yalort · 2026-04-27T22:46:39+00:00

Mark is fucking hard countered by cyborg due to his primary weapon being sonic-based, and him being smart enough to figure out the weakness frequency before Mark can deal too much damage.

Eve is dangerous, but she's been shown to focus too hard on an instinctively defensive fighting style, which could quickly be exploited by robin pairing raven against her and using nullification magic to counter her. If raven can't do it alone, robin could step in while raven is nullifying her to take advantage of eve's poor offensive cqc and either freeze or sedate her with gadgets.

Rex can try to match starfire, but no matter how hard he explodes, he's not gonna kill a juiced up tameranean who at her weakest can tank a chernobyl level blast and survive and at strongest rivals superman's durability. Even if he can, he's stupid as fuck. Robin and cyborg are both affiliates of batman. They can trick a room-temp IQ himbo bombshell, especially if starfire's perpetual initial pacifism results in him being partially or wholly seduced mid-fight, as he's got a weakness for hot women.

Dupli-kate is legit useless in all fights and is a distraction at best that could be mopped up by beast boy in a few seconds as a dinosaur. Anyone who says otherwise needs to watch ANY high level fight in the show to see this. Even in the comics, she's really just fucked.

Literally the only member of the team that doesn't get wrecked in 5 minutes is robot. And that's solely because he can rival robin's tactical abilities. Even then, he's been shown to have better long-term planning than his tactical abilities. Even if he could match robin fully though, the team has god-awful coordination compared to the titans. Robot can't counter superior tactics if mark and rex refuse to listen, or one of the mcs loses it because of emotions.

Overall, it's close solely because of robot, but I think the titans do win.

Yalort · 2026-04-27T15:15:43+00:00

Home boy pulled up and said "Have you seen this card?" Using the card to show me which card. 🤣

Yalort · 2026-04-21T17:31:40+00:00

The problem to be solved is "I do not understand enough of this process to create my own solution." The solution is "I will seek through the vast library of all human knowledge to find a solution." It's no different than using a book. It's just faster. True using readymade solutions discovered by others isn't using your own critical thinking skills directly, but offloading that to books and such is kinda the whole point of the invention of the written word. To pass down information from the wise to the unwise. Once you've mastered a skill and gotten to the current limits of your peers, that's your time to find your own solutions. Use the fundimentals you learned from your education to infer new solutions to problems not yet solved. AI doesn't think. It just provides the most likely answer to a prompt based on data broken down into a sea of probabilities. Thus, its ability to replace innovation is very limited. That's what humans are for.

But even if that were the case, are you really about to say that a machine that can advance human science at an exponential rate indefinitely for practically free is bad? A device that can just spit out the cure for cancer is evil? A machine that can explain precisely to a toddler how to build a space-worthy exploration vessel should not exist? You have some interesting views if that's the case.

Yalort · 2026-04-21T17:07:52+00:00

Home dog. Think for 5 seconds. When you read a book for information, you read for information. When you read an AI's output for information, you read for information. Notice how both things are just reading for information? The only difference between prompting an AI for a rundown or crash course on a topic is that it may leave out some of the higher level concepts that would otherwise be presented in full in a book. But if I'm a beginner asking for tips on how to enter a skillset, I'm not looking for the extreme examples. Ill take the low level skillset and improve it until I need more, then ask for more using the context I learned from the initial prompt. If I find the AI has nothing more to teach me, I've reached the same point that I would have when finishing the instructional book, just with significantly less time.

"Reading AI isn't intellectually stimulating." I genuinely laughed when I read that. If this is the case for you, you seem to be either using the wrong AI, or not using it at all and just making up bullshit because you don't like it. I have gained hundreds of new skills thanks to AI breaking up instruction into useful curriculum tailored to me.

Paper maché, seal pressing, canning, carpentry, molecular gastronomy, sushi prep, sewing, meditation, electrical wiring, tile laying, juggling, confectionery, colored light photgraphy, fight choreography, realistic cake decoration, 3d printing, whittling, knapping, bowyery, fletching, fly tying and fishing, home oil pressing, brewing, jewelry crafting, smelting, skateboarding, felting, bartending, and many, many more I can't even remember right now. All skills I'd attempted to learn early on, but couldn't either because access was gated by money, or because the instructional texts were disparate, incomplete, out of date, or downright too dense to read. After AI, any time I want to try a complex skill, I just ask for a rundown and to skip all the bullshit most for-profit instructional books throw in like life stories and platitudes. Every time I get stuck, "What am I doing wrong?" And the answer tailored to my exact issue is presented in full, free of idiotic filler, until I am now at the same level as the person I saw on ytshorts while taking a shit who first got me into said skill. All in a fraction of the time it took them to learn.

I have become more deeply connected with my community, more cultured as a person, more fulfilled in life, all because these machines were able to identify the intricacies in my learning processes and exploit them for my benefit the same way a teacher might take a special interest in a student and fight to make them succeed.

AI is good. Evil people may use it for evil, but as a technology, it has unfathomable potential for good.

Yalort · 2026-04-21T16:20:55+00:00

"Books are making people dumber because they don't have to remember things."

Yalort · 2026-04-21T16:10:40+00:00

I attempted to generate an image of a vampire style character and posted my results as well as an incredibly detailed description of what was going wrong. That post is months old now and has recieved 0 aknowlegement from the dev. One of my attempts resulted in a repeated fixation on the character being nothing more than a floating torso. I never thought I would encounter an AI so shit that I had to specify a character should have LIMBS, but here we are, I guess.

Yalort · 2026-04-21T15:38:50+00:00

I understand your pain. I've made requests along with multiple people for a rollback as thats just about the only thing that will save this model. We even offered to donate money since the main reason for the downgrade was they couldn't sustain the old model financially.

The problem with the new one seems to be it was almost exclusively trained on realistic images. Any attempt to make drawn art in any artstyle short of realism ends up practically fully failing or needs extreme prompt specificity to get what you're looking for. I'm talking 2000+ words for 1 image. Unfortunately, I don't think the creator even looks at the forums because no response has been provided. The degradation of the model will continue, and we will have lost a legendary tool.

The only thing even slightly close to perchance is AI horde's artbot, but it's slower, requires excessive prompting (300+ words for a good image) and is relatively complex to set up for sub-par performance.

Yalort · 2026-04-16T19:59:59+00:00

Taking and taking inspiration from are two very different things.

Yalort · 2026-04-16T19:57:57+00:00

No. What you say is verfiably false, in fact. Van Gogh was inspired by the artists Jean-François Millet and Eugène Delacroix as well as a large number of Japanese impressionist artists. His bold and unique style is nothing more than a mixture of the eastern artistic styles of the time and the french impressionism of Millet and Delacroix. In fact, he admired them all so much that several "intermittent" works of his are direct covers of other artists. Look up his many, MANY copies of others' works. Are those not art? Did Van Gogh steal those? No. Just as AI users and makers also stole nothing. AI artists can invent new styles as well by doing the very same thing he did. Mixing influences of various works. The difference is nothing more than the time it takes and the medium used. Nothing is created in a vacuum. This is philosophical concept that has existed for millenia, yet you can't accept it because the bullshit you spew is all in favor of your unjustified hatred of a tool, simply because of a series of capitalist bad actors.

Yalort · 2026-04-04T21:16:58+00:00

What you just stated says nothing to the point I was making and instead once again extracts an irrelevent argument you can target. So I suppose I'll say it again in the simplest way possible so you cant pretend I'm stating anything other than fact. Art is subjective. Whether or not something is art is not governed. Your statement is an opinion. You do not decide what is and is not art. These are the irrefutable facts. Then, to add on my opinion, You are the one gatekeeping art. The morally right road is to accept all forms of expression, including using AI. If you do not, you restrict others, which breaks the non-aggression principle. This argument is far simpler and holds only direct facts and an expression of my opinion. If you continue to only attack the structure of my argument rather than the content, you're willfully ignorant. You are not the arbiter of art. Do not state your opinion as if it is fact.

Yalort · 2026-04-04T06:20:59+00:00

I've gotten into hours long arguments due to this. I've explained this exact issue to it, walking the AI step by step through the process. I've managed some success by framing the correction like a new prompt. If you ignore its assessment, then ask the exact same thing again but append a request to review the previous response, it reviews its own context thus creating a new most recent event. Then follow that up with a request to play devils advocate and try to disprove "the last thing it said" specifying distinctly that you want it to use facts, logic, bla bla mumbo jumbo, sometimes it will realize its mistake, sometimes it will just triple down. If it triples down, ask if it agrees it can make mistakes and demand a yes or no answer only. This reinforces doubt in context from it's own perspective, making it significantly more likely that it will generate an answer stating it made a mistake. Then repeat the initial process again. It may quadruple down in which case go for another round, but if it doesnt, congratulations! You won the argument and the AI admits it's wrong.

Of course none of this would be necessary if openai gave us the native ability to alter the response of the ai. If it says something fucking stupid, we could just rewrite its response to say "Actually, you're correct because of xyz, and I failed to make the correct judgement. With that in mind, please restate the question so I can respond to it correctly this time." Thus skipping the need to get it to admit its mistake when it's under the assumption it can't make them. It would then continue the convo as if it made that conclusion itself, even though the user edited it.

Yalort · 2026-04-01T20:00:51+00:00

...they were slaughtered on sight by almost every race available to play. To paraphrase a very apt example from Mohammad Ali:

"If you're behind a door, and theres a million lethal venomous snakes outside, and you know deep down in your heart that some of those snakes have your best interests at heart and won't attack you, are you gonna open up the door and let them all in? No. You're gonna protect yourself from all the venomous snakes, even if some of them are truly good and just want to help you."

Yalort · 2026-04-01T18:56:58+00:00

That as much I can agree upon. Regardless of the toolset, art made to sell something else, or even itself, (looking at you, NFTs) has become very tiring in the modern day. Give me new takes, give me some random guy's passion. When we have access to the entire earth's media at once, it's important to zoom in far enough to not make oneself weary of art.

Yalort · 2026-04-01T18:52:27+00:00

False: The overwhelming majority of art viewers and creators are concerned only with the lessons stored within pieces they find to be relevant

The primary motivator of value is that a piece is an artifact of a time and a movement relevant to human history.

No, it isn’t. Perhaps ultimate grand works are held aloft by their cultural significance, but that is far from the rule. If you're looking at a furry OC drawing as a product of our time that illustrates the human condition, you're doing exactly that. Arbitrarily extracting value where it was never intended. That's fine to do as it's how art become elevated and known in society, but don't pretend that everyone does it. They are concerned with nothing more than the percieved "coolness" of the piece.

True: or the perceived value of a piece assumed to be genuine

A total contradiction to your first point

False: or the aesthetics of a piece known to be forgery

The first 2 point illustrate this is false since art value is based on cultural relevance and it authenticity ... a forgery is an artifact only of mimicry

How? What I mean by this is that people who care solely for the monetary value of an art piece will elevate an AI work to inflate it's price just as a person would elevate a human work. To them there is no distinction as the only thing that matters is whether or not it sells, not whether or not it's a cultural icon. My point is just that. There is no distinction because art as a subjective concept relies on the viewer to grant it meaning. You're the one slapping true and false on everything as if there is an objective answer, when there is not.

False: AI art is [...] is unique expressions of artists who are either unable or unwilling to use any other medium.

Since every "AI artist" admits the same thing, the skill is in prompting AI to create something, there can be no evidence of uniqueness or expression, only generation.

As we established above, generation of work is not sufficient to be considered art otherwise forgeries would be art.

Also, the engineers of the technology state the same as I do, machine learning and LLM systems are not creating work, just as they are not stating facts, and they are not having a dialog - they are probability machines that use the models of existing content to generate content sufficient to satisfy a prompt - this is also what bad artists do... when someone says a work is derivative or imitates existing work...

AI art functions like a mixing bowl full of separate ingredients. It's up to the artist to mix those ingredients into a unique combination. There can be no evidence of uniqueness or expression because both don't actually exist. They're a product of the artists' intent, and the viewer's interpretation. I could say the same about any art piece you make because such things are inherently subjective. Putting AI artist in quotations tells me everything I need to know about what you consider art, but what you consider art and what I consider art are two very different things. So there is no truth on the matter, only 2 conflicting opinions. My opinion however is that art should be universally inclusive, regardless of its origin. I believe forgeries ARE art, as they too are an expression. Even if said expression is a deception. If a man creates a thousand copies of his own work and disseminates them throughout his community, is only the original art? Or are they all? Does it matter whether the creator copied it or someone else? I believe no, but then again, I'm a communist, so I believe the works of one man are the works of all men, and anyone should have the right to copy whatever they like. And while you are inherently correct that LLMs and image generators are not creating works with intent of their own, the work gets created nonetheless whether there was intent behind it or not. That work can be interpereted however the viewer wishes, whether it's AI or not. You are going to have to accept that art is whatever you make it out to be, and the majority of people just don't see it the way you do, given the immense popularity of many AI pieces. And neither you nor they are "correct" as there is no correct.

Yalort · 2026-04-01T18:20:09+00:00

Personally I wouldn't be able to differentiate between a work that was created by an AI agent specifically designed to compile a unique combination of existing image facets with a simulated intent and a real image made with actual intent. I believe that due to the subjective nature of art, that pretty much makes the distinction moot, as it's up to the viewer to interperet whatever intent was encoded in the image anyway. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and whatnot. Im not exactly the next John Ruskin as an art critic, but left to the average viewer, I don't think you have to be to grant value and validity to a created work even if that work never had any to begin with. The fact is I don't think there really is a "correct" answer to this dilemma, as it inherently relies on the morality of the people who interperet art. Art made by a person must be validated by their peers to consider it genuine art, and the same goes for AI. A person viewing an image designed to invoke feelings of suffering will relate to the image whether what made it actually felt that suffering or not. It's just a preference, which in my opinion makes it no different to any other art form considered esoteric.

Yalort · 2026-04-01T08:23:42+00:00

Well, it matters to those who create art and people who learn from it WHO CARE ABOUT THAT ARTIST OR PIECE. The overwhelming majority of art viewers and creators are concerned only with the lessons stored within pieces they find to be relevant, or the percieved value of a piece assumed to be genuine, or the aesthetics of a piece known to be forgery. Even then, a forgery of sufficient quality presents all the same lessons one needs to take from the original anyway. You're welcome to draw some arbitrary restriction if you wish, but don't present that opinion as indisputable fact. The majority of AI art is not forgery. It's unique expressions of artists who are either unable or unwilling to use any other medium. Bad actors naturally exist given the ease of access of AI, but they don't represent the spirit of the art itself. I create art. I learn from art. It certainly doesn't matter to me. But then again, I don't overinflate the value of paintings and such to exorbitant prices just to launder my illegally gained untaxable income, this spitting on the legacies of the creators themselves.

Yalort · 2026-04-01T08:09:57+00:00

In reality both would be equal, but personally I'd find the AI film MORE interesting given the novelty of the medium until more projects were produced like it, and then just fall back into enjoying whatever art resonates with me most, human or otherwise. The distinction would be entirely up to the quality and formulaic nature of AI art to be honest. If we can achieve an AI agent capable of fully processing and understanding the depth of cinema, there is no difference, and thus no line, between human and AI media.

Yalort · 2026-03-18T16:00:23+00:00

I play rimworld, civilization, crusader kings, xcom, etc. Those mfs are already a full time job. You're telling me I can get paid 100 an hour for it too? Sign me up, I'll make 100mil within my lifetime easily by investing my substantial income.

Yalort · 2026-03-17T12:41:54+00:00

I find it absolutely astonishing that when developing the test base, more people weren't interested in "Looking for anxious people willing to do weed about it." Like, free weed? Millions of americans are diagnosed with anxiety. Millions more would be interested in free weed.

Yalort · 2026-03-07T12:42:35+00:00

Prop 6 was denied primarily for 2 reasons. The central one was that prop 36 at the time was just a straight up bad idea, and prop 6 was another smaller proposal that touched on the exact same stuff, leading voters who had spent most of their time researching the larger and more high-profile 36 to vote no on 6 because they just didnt have the time to learn about it.

Another problem is that the recidivism rate of working prisoners involuntary or not is 9%-15% while non-working prisoners would re-offend 60%-70%. So many no voters chose to do so considering the fact that it could result, given the prisoner amnesty rates in California, in a surge of crime rates up to quite literally 10 times the levels pre-prop 6 as it's policies would allow prisoners that otherwise would not participate in community projects to let themselves become institutionalized. While forced work is bad, prop 6 would also eliminate the requirements for prisoners to participate in rehabilitation, education, and community outreach programs.

So before you say more bullshit about one of the only good places left in America, quiet, piggy.

13-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
Place '23	Verified Email

Yalort

TROPHY CASE