Loot boxes have been controversial since their introduction. In 2017, EA and DICE decided to make sure that the entire economy of Star Wars Battlegrounds II is fully dependent on random drops of booty boxes and their incredibly long durations. This shameful money clip may have exploded in the face of the company, like the Death Star above Endor, but it has opened an investigation into the operation of the world's surprise boxes. On Wednesday, August 7th, the FTC hosted a Booty Box Games Workshop to discuss issues related to this method of loot distribution in the game. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo announced a new initiative at this workshop. – an initiative that will require all games published on their platforms to reveal their chances of receiving rewards.
Polygon reports Michael Warnecke, Chief Technology Policy Officer of the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), made the announcement today at the workshop.
I am pleased to announce this morning that Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony have indicated to ESA their commitment to adopt new platform policies regarding the use of paid loot boxes in games developed for their platforms. This would especially apply to new games and game updates that add loot box functionality, and would require the disclosure of relative rarity or probabilities of obtaining random virtual elements in games. available on their platforms.
Publishers also rallied to announce their support for this initiative, including Activision Blizzard, Bandai Namco, Bethesda, Bungie, EA, Take-Two Interactive, Ubisoft, Warner Bros. and Wizards of the Coast. However, all of these announcements and statements apply to consoles and not to computers. Valve has updated DOTA 2 to display the loot box disclosure data last year, but it has not made the disclosure mandatory. this information for games on its platform. No smaller game stores like Epic or GoG, at least not yet.
The goal is to roll out this program in 2020, but no schedule has been released. The goal seems to be to prevent any attempt at government regulation, like the formation of the ESRB to avoid regulation of video game content. But simply publishing the odds of winning a reward may not be enough to rule out accusations that booty cases are money games, and this may not be as clear as that. " a rating system.
Here is a simple example of what I mean. Although reasonable people may differ on what implies acceptable Nudity, a game contains or does not contain naked humans. If you have a 5% chance of getting "Epic" quality loot in a surprise box, is it a chance to get all epic article, or luck that you get an epic article that you do not already have? If you win a box of loot in a specific game mode, will the loot be associated with this game mode? Do people spend a currency in the game to win cosmetic items or pay real money for random throws that will affect their performance in the game? Are these percentages released in the game when players are on the screen of the box or they are hidden in an old blog post containing four links buried at the bottom of the main page Game? Does the game allow you to win the currency with which you buy loot chests in the game at a reasonable rate, or does it distribute it as a pre-haunted distributing Bob Crachit salary? Are loot boxes aggressively sold to children as part of a children's game, or do they have a title intended for adults who likely understand something about the reality of credit card purchases? Are the objects you to win from resealable surprise boxes on a market for real money, or are they related to your character?
Readers and experts generally agree that the way in which these issues are addressed has an impact on whether or not booty chests cross the line between random play and an entertainment mechanism. A game with cosmetic locker objects that offers a modest number of crates a chance to buy more is acceptable for many people. A game like the original incarnation of Battlefront II (the current game has a totally different and more standard loot distribution system) chaining the performances in the game all the way to crates of random loot. The answer of the Internet? Convulsive rage. And while the spasms caused by Internet rage present a real problem, gamers are not wrong to feel like EA intends to take advantage of it. It was absolutely.
Answers like this may baffle proposals to regulate loot chests, at least in the United States, but simply publishing statistics about your chances of getting a particular drop will not answer the question anymore. whether the chests are a game or not. Honestly, I think it's because the answer is "it depends". In some cases, booty crates are basically an optional way to get a particular look. In others, they played a vital role in the success of the title. It's hard to say that the combination of payment mechanisms to win random games of chance allows you to pay real money to get, it's not very close to the game, mostly if the rare contents of the booty chest can be sold for a substantial amount of real money in a market. At this point, a new digital hat is roughly equivalent to a Pick 5 card. Applying a classification to a video game is also a somewhat subjective attempt, but it is at least a subjective attempt with objective standards for concepts such as nudity and coarse language, that exist or do not exist in a game.
The question of whether crates of loot is a gamble and, if so, under what circumstances, will need to be clarified in more detail – and we hope to see Valve, Epic, GoG and other distributors adopt the same position with regard to mandatory incidental disclosures. . The fact that EA tried to defend its object box mechanism as "pretty ethical surprise mechanics"Earlier this year, we are not optimistic that the video game industry understands just how much gamers hate this type of system.
We are not the day when artificial intelligence will provide us with a brush for reality. As foundations on which we rely for their integrity, many people are frightened by what will happen. But we have always lived in a world where our senses do not represent reality. New technologies will help us get closer to the truth by showing where we can not find it.
D & # 39; a historical point of viewWe have never successfully halted the progress of a technology and we owe the level of security and safety that we appreciate this continued progression. While normal accidents occur and the inconveniences of progress will probably never cease to exist, we aggravate the problem when we try to fight the inevitable. In addition, the reality has never been so clear and precise as we want to believe. We are fighting against new technologies because we think this creates uncertainty when, more precisely, it only highlights the uncertainty that has always existed and that we have preferred to ignore.
The dissolution of our reality – a fear provoked by artificial intelligence – is a mirage. For a long time, we trusted what we see and hear throughout our lives, whether in the media or with people we know. But no reality is reality because the reality has never been absolute. Our reality is a relative construction. That's what we agree on based on information from our experience. By observing and sharing our observations, we can try to construct an image of objective reality. Of course, this goal becomes much harder to reach when people are lying or using technology that makes convincing lies more possible. This seems to threaten the very stability of reality as we know it.
But our idea of reality is imperfect. It includes human observation and conjecture. It is limited by the way our body perceives the world around us and by our brain that processes the information acquired. Although we can capture a lot, we can only detect a fragment of the electromagnetic spectrum and even that is too much for our brain to deal with immediately. As the healing brush in Photoshop, our brains fill the gaps in our vision with his best guess what it belongs to. You can test your blind spots to get a better idea of how it works or just watch it in action by looking at an optical illusion like this:
This, among other cognitive processesyou produce submitted versions of reality. You can not feel every aspect of a moment and you will certainly remember every detail. But on top of that, you do not even see everything you see. Your brain builds the missing parts, hide visual information (mostly when we move), makes you hear the bad soundsand can confuse the rubber members with yours. When you have a limited view of a given moment and the information you get is not completely accurate, you start with a subjective version of the reality that you are able to gauge. Trusting collective human observations led us to believe geese grew up on trees for about 700 years. Human observations, conclusions and beliefs are not an objective reality. Even in the best case, we will sometimes come up with some extraordinary mistakes.
Everything you know and understand goes through your brain and brain does not give an accurate picture of reality. To make matters worse, we often miss our memories in many ways. Our vision of the world is neither true nor distant. So for a long time, we relied on others to help us understand what is true. This can work very well in many situations, but sometimes people will have very different versions of the same situation because of past experiences. In both cases, problems arise when subjective observations contradict one another and people can not agree on what really happened. Technology has helped us to improve this technological problem that we had feared during its initial introduction.
Over time, we have created tools to help us survive as a species. By developing new tools, we were able to disseminate information more easily and create a climate of trust. Video and audio recordings allowed us to bypass brain processes and record an unenriched record of an event – at least from a singular point of view. A video camera still fails to capture all the reality of a given moment.
For example, imagine that someone pulls a knife in a fight and pretends to sweep to try to scare off his attacker without any intention of causing real harm. Video surveillance draws a different picture without this context. For an officer of justice, the images of security will show assaults with a deadly weapon. In the absence of other evidence, the officer must exercise caution and make an arrest.
That such assumptions lead to fewer crimes or more questionable arrests does not change the fact that an objective record of the reality lacks information. We trust recordings as truth when they offer only part of the truth. When we trust video, audio or anything that can not tell the whole story, we rely on a support that lies by omission by design, as any observer of reality.
Technology has flaws, but that does not give it away. Overall, we have benefited from advances that have resulted in objective recordings of the world around us. All records do not require additional context. A video of a cute puppy might not please everyone, but most people will agree that they will see a puppy. In the meantime, we called the green sky and can not agree on the color of a dress in a bad photo. As technology progresses and becomes accessible to more and more people, we all begin to learn when and how we can paint reality with a less precise brush than we would have thought.
This awareness causes fear because of our system of understanding, the world begins to collapse. We can not rely on tools that we could not understand our world. We need to question the reliability of the things we have recorded and it goes against much of what we have learned, experienced and integrated with our identities. As new technologies emerge, they further weaken our ability to trust what is familiar to us, they create this fear that we tend to attribute to technology rather than ourselves. Phone calls are part of normal life, but they were, in the beginning, considered an instrument of the devil.
Today, AI is experiencing similar problems. Deepfakes panic when people began to understand how to easily exchange faces with stunning accuracy – with many quality videos and photos meeting specific requirements. Although these deepfakes have rarely deceived anyone, we have all glimpsed the near future in which artificial intelligence would progress to the point of not knowing the difference. That day came last month at Stanford University, Princeton University, the Max Planck Institute for Computing, and Adobe. published a paper this demonstrated an incredibly simple way to edit a recorded video to change the spoken dialogue visually and audibly, which fooled the majority of people who saw the results. Take a look:
Visit the paper summary and you will find most of the text devoted to ethical considerations – a common practice these days. Researchers in artificial intelligence can not get a good job without considering the possible applications of their work. This includes discussion of cases of malicious use so that people understand how to use it for useful purposes and allow them to also prepare themselves for problems that may arise.
Ethical statements can fuel public panic because they act indirectly as a kind of vague science fiction in which our fearful imaginary must fill the gaps. When experts present the problem, it's easy to think only about the worst-case scenarios. Even if the benefits are taken into account, faster video editing and error correction seem to be a slight advantage when the negatives include false information that people will have trouble identifying.
However, this technology will emerge regardless of the efforts made to stop it. Our own history demonstrates time and time again that Any effort to stop the progress of science will, at best, result in a short delay. We should not want to prevent people who understand and care about ethics from what they are, because it leaves others to create the same technology in the shadows. What we can not see seems less frightening for a moment, but we have no way to prepare, understand, or guide these efforts when they are invisible.
Although technologies such as the aforementioned textual video editor inevitably lead to both uses and artificial intelligence more efficient in the future, we are already victims of similar manipulations in everyday life. The doctored photos are nothing new and manipulative editing shows how the context can determine the meaning.a technique taught at the film school. AI adds another tool to the box and increases mistrust in media that has always been easily manipulated. It's unpleasant to live, but ultimately a good thing.
We trust our senses and the recordings we watch too much. Reminders of this help prevent us from doing so. When Apple adds a correction of attention to video chats and Google offers a voice assistant that can make phone calls for you. we will have to remember that we see and hear may not accurately represent reality. Life does not require precision to progress and prosper. To pretend that we can observe objective reality does more harm than to accept that we can not. We do not know everything, our goal remains a mystery to science and we will always make mistakes. Our problem is not with artificial intelligence, but rather that we believe we know the full story when we only know a few details.
As we enter this new era, we should not be fighting against the inevitable technology that continues to shine to highlight our misplaced trust. AI continues to demonstrate the fragility of how we view reality as a species at a very fast pace. This kind of change hurts. We realized that we had only imagined the stable ground on which we had walked all our lives. We are looking for a new place of stability in the face of uncertainties because we consider that the solution is the problem. We may not be ready for this change, but if we fight the inevitable, we will never be.
Artificial intelligence will continue to erode the false comfort we enjoy, which can be scary, but it is also an opportunity. This gives us a choice: to oppose something that scares us or to try to understand it and use it for the benefit of humanity.
Top image credit: Getty Images
div id=””>I lost all my friends nine years ago.
It was my fault. I connected with a friend 's boyfriend and I immediately regretted it. I betrayed a friend who was really close to my heart and I could not say anything or what I would do. When all the members of our friendship group finally appeared, one by one, friends began to fall like flies. Some sent messages to tell me that they knew what I had done, while others simply disappeared. This moment is, to this day, the most shameful of my life.
Nearly ten years later, I always want to know how are my old friends. I consult them on Google, Facebook, Instagram or Twitter to try to understand how their life unfolds. The deep sadness that I was feeling then, you dissipated, the tears stopped and new friends came into my life (and stayed, thank God), but I can not shake this desire to just know how their lives are. place.
I know it's probably a bit strange to do – maybe even a little unhealthy – but this practice does not come from a place of malice – just curiosity.
I hesitated to share this particular story of my past because it is a moment of which I am not proud. But I also wanted to answer a question that had been in my head for a while now: why do I keep looking at the profiles of the friends I lost? Am I trying to recreate the physical closeness I once felt with their digital presence? Is it a guilty conscience? Nostalgia Something I should stop doing immediately? All the foregoing?
Once I get rid of my inclinations "I'm afraid of doing that", I ask it to Twitter to see if other people are doing it too. In the end, many people occasionally search for old friends on the Internet – and many have very interesting reasons to do so.
blockquote class=”pull-quotes” data-fragment=”i-like-knowing-just” data-description=””I like knowing just how they’re doing — are they alive? Are they healthy? Are they happy?”” data-micro=”1″>"They like to know how they are going, are they alive, are they healthy, are they happy?"
The journalist Eric Francisco says that he's aged with his friends. "An intimate friend has mysteriously upset me and to this day, I do not know why," Francisco tells me. He thinks his occasional research on old friends on the Internet comes from sentimentality. "I am a sentimental person," he says. "They like to know how they are going, are they alive, are they healthy, are they happy?"
Francisco also took advantage of his research on the Internet to get in touch with these friends. "In fact, I've talked to a few people on the occasion, and you always make that noble promise to catch up with you," he says. "I try to follow up, but life still bothering me, but I just need to know that the people who counted for me years ago are still doing well."
In this era of abyssal political divisions, Francisco says that he tries to "look for the elements of positivity" whenever he can. "To know that old friends are doing well, it comforts me," he adds. "Life is short, man, we can not keep those grudges forever."
This behavior is not limited to search engines. Fashion blogger Urszula Makowska uses Instagram to check her former best friend with whom she is no longer in contact. "I'm doing this to see how they are doing," says Makowska. "I have a specific friend, I do it because I miss her, but we split up and we do not talk at all." She says she looks at Insta from her old friend when they come to her mind, and when she misses them. "I do it because I miss that person in my life and hope to see that she's fine," she adds.
The student engineer Will, who gave his first name only, says that he is looking for people with whom he has scrambled once or twice a month. "I do it to see what they do and to gauge how their life has changed without me," says Will. "To be honest, I am sometimes jealous and sad to see them rubbing shoulders with other people and / or doing interesting things."
As to why we are doing this, we should focus only on human nature but also on the nature of the Internet.
"There is an inherent curiosity about the human condition and the digital economy proves it"
Dr. Yasmin Ibrahim – Reader in International Business and Communications at Queen Mary University in London – said "that there is a curiosity inherent in the human condition, and that the digital economy is putting this forward".
"Internet and social media are a new way of" sociality "in which people offer details about their lives and status," said Ibrahim, adding that the Internet now existed as a new media of "sociality" which makes human beings "traceable that can be tracked and, in some ways, interrogated by their online visual presence". Ibrahim said the logic of social networking sites was based on "sharing our lives and details" with our surroundings – our friends, colleagues and acquaintances. But sharing these details can "catch the eye of those who are no longer in touch with you".
Per Ibrahim, this "traceable economy aligned with research, tagging and tracking" means that we recreate our IRL relationships through "Internet Architecture". The digital economy combines our curiosity for others, including those we have known in the past, to the ability to search for them. "We are increasingly integrated into networks where we have contacts and where knowledge lists can be consumed through this research economy, where people expose themselves via social networks providing details and a vision of their lives, "she continues.
Do our feelings of remorse or nostalgia have something to do with this type of activity on the Internet? Well, kind of.
"The Internet environment plunges us into different affective states where validation, approval, guilt, social shame, humiliation, vitriol, and bullying rituals can inspire others to watch and follow them all the way through. of their daily journey, "said Ibrahim. "When we remediate relationships via digital platforms, human beings can create new online rituals without abandoning existing social norms or offline behaviors."
Our propensity to compare ourselves to others also plays in this activity. According to Ibrahim, the Internet allows "a comparison economy", which allows people to see "how their peers travel in life" and the choices they made "even when they are arguing with people" . So even once you've cut ties with your friends in real life, they can still compare and compare their life to you based on what you post online.
Sometimes, for some reason, people who matter a lot for us are leaving our lives. And sometimes, this curiosity about how they manage in life does not go away.
Friendships dissipate or end abruptly for millennia. But in the Internet, there is the added complication of having digital means to see what people are doing. The Internet can create a false sense of closeness to people and, in my case, I use it to feel artificially close to the people I have lost in life.
Maybe I'll never stop wondering how my lost friends are doing. But I will definitely limit my research on the Internet.
Now that I am a 30-year-old human being who pretends to be an adult, I have hoped to be able to satisfy my desire to be part of the cold crowd a long time ago. But years after this festival of self-awareness, angered by anger, I found myself uncomfortable with the feeling of being outside the clique.
More than 10 years after I put high school well behind me, I now live in a virtual college. And I would be lying if I said that I do not feel a pinch among these teenager feelings – to think that I'm on the outskirts of Cool Town – every time I scroll through my Twitter feed.
I'm talking about clicks on Twitter – these sub-communities of people who often have many followers, who stack each other in their mentions and who seem to have a sense of niche humor that is unique to their own subculture of clique. For strangers, they may feel like King Makers, Somebodies, powerful peers in the area, or even just want to be friends with them.
Maternity blogger Emily Beatrice says that she discovered that the world of blogs for mom was filled with clicks on Twitter. "I would like to reach out to other writers and be ignored," says Beatrice. "It sounds a lot like high school, everyone trying to reach the top, either by walking on others, or by aspiring those who they think are more powerful." The feeling of being excluded from these groups made Beatrice feel "insignificant and inadequate – as if I had to change who I am to fit in with them."
Beatrice decided to start the #Other mothers community for mothers who might also have felt excluded in the same way. "#OtherMothers is about women who support women without distinction of opinion, class, race or religion," she says. "The white middle class online privilege limits our vision of motherhood and women in general."
In all honesty, a little lacking in security, Twitter amplifies things that happen in my mind. Like, what if we do not make fun of the fun thing I have to say? What if people find me really annoying? What if people saw my joke not landing and judging me? Róisín Lanigan, editor-in-chief at iD magazine, shares this sentiment a bit.
"I literally always feel so with groups of writers who seem to be all super talented companions." I'm always scared, I'm afraid to follow them or hire them in case they say, "Who is this loser?" Lanigan said, people on Twitter thinking "who is this loser?" This is a concern that crossed my mind on more than one occasion as well.
According to academics in psychology, clique formation is not unique to our high school experiences – the existence of Twitter cliques boils down to our human nature. Michael Muthukrishna, assistant professor of economic psychology at the London School of Economics, said that this "tendency to form internal and external groups" was a fundamental part of human nature. And it's not just that: this part of us lasts longer than our teenage years. Robin Dunbar – professor of evolutionary psychology at Oxford University – tells me that clique formation is a "natural pattern" for which "remains a hallmark of our social world throughout of life".
Oh cute are you in a click on Twitter? Blocked.
– J🌻 (@ childofthewild7) March 22, 2019
"According to our researchwe have a habit of forming friendships with the people who are most like us (those who share our opinions and interests), "Dunbar said. Twitter subscribers "display exactly the same grouping pattern in their online environment. Conversations with each other, as in the world face to face. "This means that there are strong parallels in how humans interact with their IRL friends and their Twitter friends." They have the same structure with the same numbers – an inner clique of 1-2 [users], an inner clique of about 5, a less intense clique of about 15, and so on – with the same contact frequencies, "explains Dunbar.
Our experience of life in friendship groups – whether in high school, at work or elsewhere – we all know it: we tend to feel loyal to this group. Professor Muthukrishna of the LSE uses the example of "arbitrarily chosen sports teams in high school" and "willingness to compete for your team at the expense of the other".
The researchers studied this "desire to form groups, to favor internal groups and to discriminate external groups" using what is called the minimal group paradigm – a method used in a laboratory to artificially create social groups. "This [tendency] what is known as the theory of social identity or ethnic psychology (where ethnic refers simply to small groups that have a mini culture in themselves), "said Muthukrishna.
i hate twitter cliques all they do is gang up on people and have this attitude
– 🧁 (@honeyplort) March 18, 2019
So, why are we so faithful to our cliques of friendship? Well, the answer is complicated.
"The simplest way to say it is that we are an exceptionally cooperative species – our closest cousins, chimpanzees, do not cooperate as much as we do," said Muthukrishna. "In reality, the greatest successes and the worst atrocities are the product of individuals cooperating in groups until a given end."
"The greatest successes and the worst atrocities are the product of individuals cooperating in groups for some purpose."
The formation of cliques – whether IRL or Twitter – is a fundamental part of our human nature and, therefore, something that is not likely to change. At the same time, it is important to recognize how exclusion and alienation of our online behavior can be perceived by other people – and the ways we can take it to change it. .
Just as Beatrice, a parenting blogger, has turned her negative experience into cliquedom in a way to find and create a more welcoming community, some stories show another, more positive, aspect of Twitter's community spirit. It is important to note that while Twitter is full of groups that feel impenetrable and highly exclusive, it can also be a place where people find positive, supportive, and mobilizing communities that mobilize to influence social change.
Black Twitter is one of those communities. Feminist Jones characterizes #BlackTwitter as "a collective of active Twitter users, mostly African Americans, who created a virtual community" and who used their collective strength to provoke "a wide range of socio-political changes". This community has since been rented for his role by "focusing the attention of the nation" on the filming by Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014.
Twitter has the ability to unite for good, but, as many of us are terribly aware of it, it also has the ability to divide for bad. Although we hide behind computer screens and phones, we are human beings, and our human traits are reflected and reinforced through social media. Being aware of this will certainly be useful to us all.