It's no different than all other fields. Planned obsolescence is a real thing and has lead to the collapse in quality for everything. Games are also designed by C-suite and committees to target some juicy statistical player-base. Because it's all about profit, not art or quality. It's not a small team trying to make something they think is fun anymore. It's a type of enshittification.

Indie games are a shining ray of hope of course that the culture can change.

Just today there was a new article that shows this:

>That devotion to their chosen genre, in EA's eyes, meant that "you didn't have to worry" about the nerds. "You didn't have to try and appeal to them. You had to worry about the people who weren't in the cave, which was the audience we actually wanted, which was much larger."

https://www.gamesradar.com/games/dragon-age/dragon-age-maest...

The missing key factor is that you have to find something unpopular and easy which will actually have a payoff if you become an expert. Risky and easier said than done.

If you read a few books on mathematics you think you're easily going to become one of the top mathematicians? Many ambitious people try to study math and decades later are disappointed by how they are still mediocre in their field or simply fail to make it into an academic career. Many PhDs in general, actually.

Mozilla should commit to stop doing anything like that. Then we can have a nice clear Terms of Use that promises to not sell data. I think that would alleviate community concerns.

I suspect it is an intentional result of deceptive marketing. I can easily imagine an alternative universe where different terminology was used instead of "AI" without sci-fi comparisons and barely anyone would care about the tech or bother to fund it.

Right now, for 10 years at least, with targeted advertising, it has been completely normalised and typical to use machine learning to intentionally subliminally manipulate people. I was taught less than 10 years at a top university that machine learning was classified as AI.

It raises many questions. Is it covered by this legislation? Other comments make it sound like they created an exception, so it is not. But then I have to ask, why make such an exception? What is the spirit and intention of the law? How does it make sense to create such an exception? Isn't the truth that the current behaviour of the advertising industry is unacceptable but it's too inconvenient to try to deal with that problem?

Placing the line between acceptable tech and "AI" is going to be completely arbitrary and industry will intentionally make their tech tread on that line.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_on_Diamond_P...

3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lockdowns

Then in February we got strong data that had a low fatality rate and mostly only threatened old people, similar to the flu, for example from the Diamond Princess cruise ship that provided a clear view since it was a closed environment with a lot of older people where everyone could be tested. Only after this did the lockdowns start and then continue for years.

So i think the response was catastrophic. There was no response at the time when it was an unknown disease and it could have been an existential threat for all we knew. Then there was an irrational over-response that lasted very long when we had strong data that indicated it wasnt that much worse than the flu. So now people wont even take it seriously or trust any messaging next time there is a potential pandemic. It is difficult to imagine a worse response or outcome.

If you have a group of animals where most of them are dogs but a few are cats, then use statistics to justify treating them all like dogs, that is not fair to the cats, is it?