I get your point, but there are some pretty specific similarities, notably:

• Grass texture sides having exposed dirt
• Clumps of pumpkin blocks as a forest-generating feature
• Single-block tree trunks with a clump of leaves on top
• Minecraft-like terrain generation and texturing

All of which are featured prominently in the screenshot. There are differences-- taller trees, more small vegetation, different grass block color variation, colored and differently-modeled leaves-- but it’s more similar than other voxel-based games I’m familiar with. Maybe I don’t play many mc-likes, but other voxel games like Fractal Block World, Teardown, that foresty one with the tiny voxels (forgot the name), Lucid Blocks (the other voxel game by this same creator(!!) about a liminal world), and even Hypixel have more notable differences than this screenshot does. Maybe there’s more to the game that’s different, but this particular screenshot looks like lightly modded MC.

None in particular, but I don’t have experience with triple-A games enough to know about this artstyle

I’m not arguing about whether the copyright claim is legit. I’m saying that claiming the picture in the post doesn’t look like MC is a questionable opinion at best.

It looks like Minecraft bro turn off your reality distortion field

I really appreciate posts like this. Thank you for making Lemmy a better place!

“Sir, I think this scene is a bad idea.”

“Yes! It’s a horribly, wickedly bad idea for the greater good of bad!”

“Ok, no, I mean like, from a bad perspective, it may seem like a good idea. But from a good perspective? It’s just plain bad.”

“Oh, you don’t know what’s good for bad.”

There’s only one reality, some people are just more wrong about what they think it is. Let me know if you are seriously arguing for “alternative truth” so I can block you now and save us both the trouble.

The rest of your worldview seems poorly thought out as well. The logical endpoint of a society which must tolerate everything is true anarchy. We created rules and societal structure to avoid that because it SUCKS. You cannot collaborate effectively without rules and the backdrop of a functioning society. You must spend an incredible amount of energy being vigilant, defending yourself from the world, and verifying things. You cannot trust anything that you do not completely understand AND trust the source of, and you’re less likely to understand things without knowledge sharing. People who are physicslly unable to contribute, who are arbitrarily deemed “weird”, or who do not wish to harm others suffer massive disadvantages. Again… not worth it.

Saying that I should not be intolerant of intolerance is not only practically unsustainable, it’s also hypocritical. You are yourself being intolerant of my intolerance, the very thing you are arguing against myself doing. In fact, if you are against intolerance wholesale, shouldn’t you agree with me that whoever is being intolerant in the first place is wrong?

i invoke fallacies because they are part of reality. the vast majority of human beings operate with cognitive and logical fallacies, there are inherent aspects of every single person.

It’s called a fallacy because it’s a thought trap. It’s something so obviously paradoxical and self-defeating that honestly, if you want to continue running into them at full speed and insisting you’re right anyways by waving your hand and saying abacadabra, I don’t see the point of replying further. Suspicions confirmed, goodbye and good luck.

Just because you can draw a similarity between two methods of thinking doesn’t man they’re equally valid/invalid. You have to compare it to reality. You’re also invoking the tolerance of intolerance fallacy here.

And it plausibly helps support the snow. There is a legitimate purpose.

“They charge developers too much!”

So you should be able to undercut them, right? Right?

“This comment lacked perspective and nuance. A dreadful affair, 0/10.”

vs

“Hehe true.”

Wtf?

Are you? Because now we’ve agreed on every fact to determine my conclusion is correct. Yes they do want people using their product; they want to lure in customers. Wasting tokens generating unhelpful output would both drive customers away with a worse experience, and cost them more money. So there’s no reason for them to do that. Like I said in my first post.

Creating additional tokens LOSES them money. For a single token, the cost of generating it exceeds the profits.

I genuinely don’t understand what would drive someone to be this condescending when you don’t even understand the argument I have clearly laid out four times now.

Because they currently lose money for every token sold. They’re operating at a loss to generate a userbase so that they can monetize later. They’re currently in the pre-enshittification (I still don’t like that word) phase where they want to offer a good product at a loss and lure in customers, not phase 2 where they monetize their userbase.

Right, a significant amount of that is what we would refer to as an ice storm.

This is getting confusing…

Hail is larger and is created from strong winds tumbling and freezing layers onto ice in a storm. Sleet (either definition) and hail are quite different.

That’s funny, an ice storm to me on the east coast means freezing rain.

I don’t think this really addresses my second point.

Hmm, interesting theory. However:

1. We know this is an issue with language models, it happens all the time with weaker ones - so there is an alternative explanation.

2. LLMs are running at a loss right now, the company would lose more money than they gain from you - so there is no motive.