I'd say the key difference between a 'spotlight hog/main character syndrome' and 'a player who RPs a lot in a group full of quiet people', is does the player also start talking/engaging whenever the spotlight is on the quiet player.
Because I think that's the real rub; that difference between a player 'dragging' the less engaged players behind them (good and fine), and a player who can't allow themselves to step back and let someone else be the main character for a single scene.
For sure. Like a lot of 'social stuff', context matters a lot.
Groups are different too; a table full of engaged RP-heavy characters can work, but put one of those players in a more quiet group, and suddenly, they can talk over everyone and be a 'problem player' (or vice versa; quiet player an a very social group).
Eh, I've seen it cut both ways (as someone who GMs 90% of the time).
Had a player I was friends with, and roommates for a while, who was a huge 'spotlight hog'. Since some players are quieter and less assertive, I try to make sure each player gets at least one 'spotlight moment' each arc. And this player was real bad for always kinda muscling into other player's 'moments'.
After having multiple talks, eventually just had to kick him (cause he didn't stop), which has pretty awkward considering 'roommate'.
So I'd take players that need to be coaxed into RP over players that have main character syndrome any day (though, of course, ideally all the players just RP readily but politely).
I mean, the meme isn't centrist. Even if the meme is literally 100% accurate, the reasonable thing would be to be a democrat. I'd take someone who can't govern over someone who is literally evil every time.
Beyond that, the idea of the meme I think is accurate. The Dem do suck, in a lot of ways. They're also, not as bad as the Republicans. So I'll politically support the dems, even if I'm not exactly going to be jumping for joy about doing so.
I don't think its 'centrist' to say that the two party systems is set up to overwhelmingly support the interests of the wealthy, no matter which of the two parties are in power.
Consuming content illegally is by definition a crime, yes. It also has no effect on your output. A summary or review of that content will not be infringing, it will still be fair use.
That their use is infringing and a crime is your opinion.
"My opinion"? have you read the headline? Its not my opinion that matters, its that of the prosecution in this lawsuit. And this lawsuit indeed alleges that copyright infringement has occurred; it'll be up to the courts to see if the claim holds water.
I'm definitely not sure that GPT4 or other AI models are copyright infringing or otherwise illegal. But, I think that there's enough that seems questionable that a lawsuit is valid to do some fact-finding, and honestly, I feel like the law is a few years behind on AI anyway.
But it seem plausible that the AI could be found to be 'illegally distributing works', or otherwise have broken IP laws at some point during their training or operation. A lot depends on what kind of agreements were signed over the contents of the training packages, something I frankly know nothing about, and would like to see come to light.
I mean, you can do that, but that's a crime.
Which is exactly what Sarah Silverman is claiming ChatGPT is doing.
And, beyond a individual crime of a person reading a pirated book, again, we're talking about ChatGPT and other AI magnifying reach and speed, beyond what an individual person ever could do even if they did nothing but read pirated material all day, not unlike websites like The Pirate Bay. Y'know, how those website constantly get taken down and have to move around the globe to areas where they're beyond the reach of the law, due to the crimes they're doing.
I'm not like, anti-piracy or anything. But also, I don't think companies should be using pirated software, and my big concern about LLMs aren't really for private use, but for corporate use.
The issue isn't that people are using others works for 'derivative' content.
The issue is that, for a person to 'derive' comedy from Sarah Silverman the 'analogue' way, you have to get her works legally, be that streaming her comedy specials, or watching movies/shows she's written for.
With chat GPT and other AI, its been 'trained' on her work (and, presumably as many other's works as possible) once, and now there's no 'views', or even sources given, to those properties.
And like a lot of digital work, its reach and speed is unprecedented. Like, previously, yeah, of course you could still 'derive' from people's works indirectly, like from a friend that watched it and recounted the 'good bits', or through general 'cultural osmosis'. But that was still limited by the speed of humans, and of culture. With AI, it can happen a functionally infinite number of times, nearly instantly.
Is all that to say Silverman is 100% right here? Probably not. But I do think that, the legality of ChatGPT, and other AI that can 'copy' artist's work, is worth questioning. But its a sticky enough issue that I'm genuinely not sure what the best route is. Certainly, I think current AI writing and image generation ought to be ineligible for commercial use until the issue has at least been addressed.
Also, tip for cooking mushrooms in general: If you throw them right into a pan with oil or another fat, they'll be little grease bombs. This is because mushrooms are very spongy, so you'll want to put them first into the pan with only a tablespoon or two of water, or a light sauce, then add oil only after they've sucked up all the water.
I meant more in 'opportunity'. Like, casters usually suck when they're in situations where they're just throwing out cantrips, and melee fighters suck at times when ranged combat is needed, or when utility/AOE/Elemental spells are needed.
So they can leverage their flexibility to throw 3 actions at the 'most relevant choice' between a 'fighter' and a 'wizard'. Granted, either form is going to be weaker than a PC Fighter or Wizard.
Add to that their occasional feats like 'Tandem Movement' that lets them kinda sorta cheese the action economy, and things like 'Eidolon's Opportunity', letting the Eidolon threaten spaces even while the summoner is acting more in 'Wizard mode', and I think an average effectiveness of 2/3s is fair. Yeah, they do lose out on 2 of 6 actions compared to two full characters, but that just means they dump the 2 'least useful actions' rather than straightforwardly being 2/6th worse.
Yeah. In my experience (as a GM with a summoner player, going through Strength of Thousands, currently at level 12), Summoners spend the majority of their time in combat acting as a 'fighter', with the summoner spending their 'at least 1 of the 4 actions' casting Boost Eidolon. Which, on that front, makes them a 'worse fighter'.
But, of course, they can throw out big spells when needed, since while they only have 4 spell slots, they don't lag behind a full caster at all in 'highest level spellslot' (aside from 10th level spells). They get fireball at the same time the Wizard does. So the real 'breaking point' between them an a full caster isn't 'burst power', but being able to lay out a constant barrage of lower level spells, meaning they lose out a lot on utility.
But, staffs on them are very important, as that is huge in giving them those 'lower level utility spells'.
And, unlike a fighter, they do have access to damage cantrips, for both when ranged combat is needed, and if elemental damage is needed. Sure, those damage cantrips are worse DPS in a white-room scenario most of the time, but they are nice to have when needed.
So while they are spending 90% of their time in combat mostly being a 'worse fighter', 10% of the time they're throwing out spells as strong as a Wizard, and just generally bringing less DPS but more flexibility than a fighter would. In that regard, they're maybe more analogous to an Inventor.
Which, on the proficiency front, the Eidolon shares martial proficiency progression with most martials, so they'll lag behind fighter and gunslinger on attacks, and monks/champions on defense, but keep pace with rangers and rogues and swashbucklers etc.
Summoners as a caster though lag behind full casters a bit, getting expert and master spellcasting 2 level later (so, more levels than not, they'll actually have the same proficiency as a full caster). More painful though is they never get Legendary casting, since full casters get that at level 19. While I've not yet seen summoners at that level, having your DC/spell attack be 2 lower is painful, but able to be mitigated by focusing more on 'party buffs'.
I don't think they need double gold, but at the same point, having the GM drop an extra Staff or skill item above and beyond the normal loot bounds could hit right.
More so than two full characters, Summoners have felt more like 2/3s of a fighter, and also 2/3s of a caster, and while that's a 'gut feeling' more than any kind of measurement, I do feel like they're closer to 'needing' 33% extra gold, rather than 100% extra gold, if that makes sense.
None? I've never really understood the appeal of 'rewatching stuff'. My favorite movie(s) are the LotR ones, and I've probably watched it through... three times over my life?