I agree, but most games also have a higher ratio of value to cost. If I buy a game for 50 bucks, I’ll play it for many hours, let’s say 50. So that will be 1 per hour, pretty good. If I buy a new movie, that isn’t available for subscription streaming, that ratio is easily double. If I have a subscription and need another now, that also lowers it’s value. It also comes with lower comfort and ease of consumption, as you mentioned.

Another great example is YouTube premium. I’ll gladly pay 5 or 7 bucks for adfree content, not 14 though. I don’t need YouTube music. So I block ads where I can and donate to creators, if I can afford it. They could have had my money, but they are, simply, greedy.

I also hate it, when deals are altered without my consent. It makes me feel like a sucker, and therefore makes it less likely for me to keep investing.

Remember when Homer designed a car?

I looked at your sources or at least one of them. The problem is, that, as you said, I am a layman at least when it comes To AI. I do know how fMRI works though.

And I stand corrected. Some of those pictures do closely resemble the original. Impressive, although not all subjects seem to produce the same level of detail and accuracy. Unfortunately, I have no way to verify the AI side of the paper. It is mind boggling that such images can be constructed from voxels of such size. 1.8mm contain close to 100k neurons and even more synapses. And the fMRI signal itself is only ablood oxygen level overshoot in these areas and no direct measurement of neural activity. It makes me wonder what constraints and tricks had to be used to generate these images. I guess combining the semantic meaning of the image in combination with the broader image helped. Meaning inferring pixel color (e.g. Mostly blue with some gray on the middle) and then adding the sematic meaning (plane) to then combine these two.

Truly amazing, but I do remain somewhat sceptical.

I don’t think what you’re saying is possible. Voxels used in fMRI measure in millimeters (down to one of I recall) and don’t allow for such granular analysis. It is possible to ‘see’ what a person sees but the image doesn’t resemble the original too closely.

At least that’s what I have learned a few years ago. I’m happy to look at new sources, if you have some though.

Thanks for looking into it!