I’ll be the first to admit that I fell for his (initially) near perfect PR that crafted the industry genius image he’s still coasting on to this day. Of course that took a nosedive when he started calling a rescuer “pedo” for pointing out the stupidity of his rescue submarine idea. But it wasn’t until he started talking about IT that I finally started to understand he wasn’t an average CEO manipulating public opinion to his advantage, but an absolute moron who actually never had any idea of what he was talking about. Yes the dude is that stupid, but good PR is actually hard to completely take down.

Simply by the questions you ask, the way you ask them, they are able to infer a lot of information. Just because you’re not giving them the raw data about you doesn’t mean they are not able to get at least some of it. They’ve gotten pretty good at that.

And RGB LEDs, gotta remember those!

Didn’t they end up adding stealth and/or hacking options for dealing with the bosses with a later patch? Director’s cut maybe?

By design? Man I need me some of that tinfoil…

What @RedstoneValley@sh.itjust.works was talking about was awareness, and you said no then proceeded to talk about something else entirely. It does raise awareness, as shown by the fact that we are talking about it.

Oh that makes sense, thanks.

Hum, why does the removal of numbers matter? Is it to do with impersonating other users?

So yeah, as you said if you dual boot your non gaming OS will stay untouched, outside of the anti-cheat’s influence, so you don’t risk much this way. I’d imagine that you would still use your credit card on your gaming OS to buy games, so that particular information stays at risk.

Yes, of course they will be under some scrutiny, but I’d prefer if they just didn’t do it. Your use case is very far from applying to the majority of users who simply run Windows for everything they do.

And there’s still the danger of vulnerabilities in the anti-cheat. For exemple, last year, this happened. It’s not exactly the same as the anti-cheat but the tech is close enough. The TL;DR is that CrowdStrike has a platform that runs at kernel level, and an update to the tool had a bug which prevented Windows from booting, instead crashing to a BSOD. Now, CrowdStrike is a security company, and a generally well regarded one at that. It doesn’t prevent them from making mistakes. So how can you trust that anti-cheat to be without vulnerability? You simply cannot.

Who’s “this guy” that says privacy is a “non-issue”? A kernel level anti-cheat has basically any possible permission on your computer. Even if you trust the game dev or publisher to not do anything other than trying to catch cheaters (you shouldn’t), you are not safe from a vulnerability in said anti-cheat that could be exploited by malicious actors.

Also, kernel level anti-cheat is far from being a silver bullet. You can use an hypervisor, that runs even higher in the chain than the anti-cheat. There are DMA cards that allow you to read game memory from outside your system. You can use a secondary computer, with a capture card, that will use computer vision to cheat.

Those options are harder to implement, but far from impossible, and are already being sold.

All of this to say, as others have said, that the only true way to fight cheating is by implementing the anti-cheat server side.

Probably why they talked about looking at a stack trace, you’ll see immediately that you made a typo in a variable’s name or language keyword when compiling or executing.

How do you know? Have you asked the mountain?

Yes! Will people stop with their sloppy criticisms?

Even when we go per capita the US stays a shithole, it’s not like they were trying to actively misinform people.

I’d say that it’s simply because most people on the internet (the dataset the LLMs are trained on) say a lot of things with absolute confidence, no matter if they actually know what they are talking about or not. So AIs will talk confidently because most people do so. It could also be something about how they are configured.

Again, they don’t know if they know the answer, they just say what’s the most statistically probable thing to say given your message and their prompt.

You’re giving way too much credit to LLMs. AIs don’t “know” things, like “humans lie”. They are basically like a very complex autocomplete backed by a huge amount of computing power. They cannot “lie” because they do not even understand what it is they are writing.