Edit to recognise your edit, as you’ve clarified that were talking about downloads - a once a month experience.
That sounds more like a time management problem - buy your game, go to bed, and it’ll be there when you wake at 2:30 for your next gaming session. ;)
~You appear to be confusing latency and bandwidth. While they are to an extent two dimensions of the same problem, it’s latency that affects gaming regardless of bandwidth.
More bandwidth will not reduce latency, and gaming intentionally only uses limited bandwidth (notwithstanding streamed rendering, but that’s a minuscule minority).
The time management problem is having a job, family, and other commitments. Some of us only get a couple of hours a week to play games. Your solution would mean we’d have to wait a whole week after buying a game before we can play it. And I’m sure you can appreciate that’s not a particularly constructive recommendation.
And that’s before you take into account how large some updates are. Fortnight updates, for example, are large enough to be entirely new games in their own right.
Console games today are routinely >50GB, and more frequently >100GB for the most popular titles. On common residential plans, it can take upwards of an hour before installation even begins.
I'm not a gamer, but I hear with how often there are required updates before playing, slower internet is pretty disruptive to quick drop-in multiplayer sessions with friends.
I can't reply to the other comment because it's been flagged, but I just wanted to point out that I do not think employees should be treated like cattle. I was being sarcastic. I was using the language of tech bros to satirize the situation.
I'm actually shocked that people could take my comment at face value and not realize it was obviously sarcastic. That is eye opening.
And to think that ARexx was released nearly 40 years ago! Amazing that modern computing still hasn't caught on to some of the capabilities AmigaOS introduced.
If training data of any kind violated copyright, every creator alive would be in breach of by virtue of any influence their “training data” (lifelong exposure to the work of others) has on their output.
The creators crying foul of AI are painting themselves into a corner, both literally and figuratively.
This is a truly awful argument that keeps coming up. It relies on the false equivalence between training an AI (a technical process that involves copying a work into computer storage), and a human being experiencing a work, which doesn't involve any kind of copying (and usually involves the human legally purchasing the work, which AI companies did not do).
There is a legal difference as well as a technical difference. AIs don't learn the same way human brains do. The law does not treat these things the same. You may want to draw an analogy between the two and say they're "basically the same", but they are not basically the same. They aren't the same at all, outside of a very weak analogy. Is training kind of sort of like human learning? Yes. That doesn't mean anything. Dogs are kind of sort of like children, but if you try to treat your child the way you treat your dog, you end up in prison. Because children aren't dogs, either in reality, or in the eyes of the legal system.
Please, AI boosters, stop using this one. Human brains aren't clocks. Human brains aren't computers. Human brains aren't LLMs. AI training does not mimic human learning in any significant way.
There's no robot that aren't built around hardcoded algorithms.
They use neural networks these days, which is just a different kind of hardcoded algorithm, that require bazillion node-hours on NVIDIA GPUs to compile instead of requiring humans doing diagrams with pens and paper. The resultant binaries are still 100% static and hardcoded.
Some humanoid demos incorporate LLMs. So what. GGUF is always static. They don't change or improve as you interact them. So still 100% hardcoded.
I've always assumed that committed conspiracy theorists are just trolls rolling with it (because nobody could be so stupid as to actually believe in the conspiracy's premise). So no amount of evidence is going to "convince" them, because they already know the truth, and don't care.
But then perhaps over time, they somehow attracted people who genuinely are that stupid, and uncritically believe? That demographic is obviously going to be too stupid to critically assess any new evidence either.
Do you think the same way about religious believers? This is a rhetorical question to help you understand why people hold false beliefs. Of course Mohammed wasn't really the messenger of God, but it's a popular false belief for some reason that isn't stupidity or trolling.
Plenty (most?) of the people you interact with every day primarily form their worldview based on what feels good emotionally. It's not a matter of stupidity, plenty of smart people delude themselves into thinking easily falsifiable things.
That sounds more like a time management problem - buy your game, go to bed, and it’ll be there when you wake at 2:30 for your next gaming session. ;)
~You appear to be confusing latency and bandwidth. While they are to an extent two dimensions of the same problem, it’s latency that affects gaming regardless of bandwidth.
More bandwidth will not reduce latency, and gaming intentionally only uses limited bandwidth (notwithstanding streamed rendering, but that’s a minuscule minority).
You cannot defy the laws of physics.~
reply