Marzepansion

likely due to OpenAI trying to optimise energy efficiency and adding filters to what they can say.

Which is different than

No companies are only just now realizing how powerful it is and are throttling the shit out of its capabilities to sell it to you later :)

One is a natural thing that can happen in software engineering, the other is malicious intent without facts. That's why I said it's near to conspiracy level thinking. That paper does not attribute this to some deeper cabal of AI companies colluding together to make a shittier product, but enough so that they all are equally more shitty (so none outcompete eachother unfairly), so they can sell the better version later (apparently this doesn't hurt their brand or credibility somehow?).

but let’s not pretend the publicly available models aren’t purposefully getting restricted either.

Sure, not all optimizations are without costs. Additionally you have to keep in mind that a lot of these companies are currently being kept afloat with VC funding. OpenAI isn't profitable right now (they lost 540 million last year), and if investments go in a downturn (like they have a little while ago in the tech industry), then they need to cut costs like any normal company. But it's magical thinking to make this malicious by default.

"we purposefully make it terrible, because we know it's actually better" is near to conspiracy theory level thinking.

The internal models they are working on might be better, but they are definitely not making their actual product that's publicly available right now shittier. It's exactly the thing they released, and this is its current limitations.

This has always been the type of output it would give you, we even gave it a term really early on, hallucinations. The only thing that has changed is that the novelty has worn off so you are now paying a bit more attention to it, it's not a shittier product, you're just not enthralled by it anymore.

I'm a game dev, so my perspective on this can be biased, but my honest opinion is if games are too expensive for you to buy, go pirate them. That's exactly the situation places like Argentina are in now. Let us westerners subsidize the cost of development until your country gets back on track and you are able to buy more than just staple goods (40% of Argentina is considered living in poverty or worse).

This goes for people in poverty anywhere in the world tbh even in the West. Piracy doesn't really move the needle much (but do try to support indie devs if you can)

Pretty standard really. You don't want contributions to the codebase come under questionable copyright concerns, or the original creator to revoke the code 4 years later causing huge headaches potentially.

You typically have to sign these types of CLA's whenever you need to contribute to any serious project. I've had to do it for Google and Microsoft recently, and I've done it for various other open source projects as well.

Still that shouldn't concern users/gamedevs as they don't contribute to the engine code typically. Only if they want to upstream changes back into the engine publicly they would need to sign it ofcourse