Maybe?

Would be interesting if they found a way to place the weapon in place of the frames right arm, for example, or, yea, dock the sidearm inside the leg.

My biggest want would be a more technological, mechanical, sorta look to the frame.

Im always on the lookout for armor sets, and Sydana, that lend that look to a frame.

Hell, maybe make it Corpus themed?

I’d like a more mechanical frame, one that looks like a cyborg (I know they’re all cybernetic, I mean a more classic “Scifi” look).

Could even give it a unique holster style where weapons replace it’s hands and are “docked” instead of holstered.

Gauss sorta fits this but I’m thinking a bit beefier and less refined looking.

This might be a two-in-one kinda thing but…

Im not a fan of Steel Path. Like, it’s fine, I guess, but “make enemies tankier” just isn’t a lot of fun IMO.

That said, here’s my “hot take”, Steel Path Circuit is a blast.

I’ve only got a few hours to play each week so I’ve pretty much stopped doing Archon hunts, Khal’s thing, Nightwave, etc.

I play with rando’s and, while sometimes frustrating, once things click it’s just fun. Hell, even when RNG curses me, I can still run support (picking up fragments standing folks back up, grabbing energy cells, etc.)

Its nice to go in and know, no matter the reward I might get, the game mode itself is fun to play.

Because this thread was about the companies taking art feeding it into their machine a D claiming not to have stolen it.

Then you compared that to clicking a link.

The machine didn’t take the blacksmiths work product and flood the market with copies.

The machine wasn’t fed 10,000 blacksmith made hammers then told to, sorta, copy those.

Justify this all you want, throw all the bad analogies at it you want, it’s still bad.

Again, if this wasn’t bad, the companies would have asked for permission. They didn’t.

You keep comparing what one person, given MONTHS or YEARS of their life could do with one artists work to a machine doing NOT THE SAME THING can do with thousands of artists work.

The machine is not learning their style, it’s taking pieces of the work and dropping it in with other people’s work then trying to blend it into a cohesive whole.

The analogy fails all over the place.

And I don’t care about copyright, I’m not an artist or an IP lawyer, or whatever. I can just look at a company stealing the labor of an entire industry and see it as bad.

By that logic I can sell anything I download from the web while also claiming credit for it, right?

Downloading to view != downloading to fuel my business.

Yes copies were made. The files were downloaded, one way or another (even as a hash, or whatever digital asset they claim to translate them into) then fed to their machines.

If I go into a Ford plant, take pictures of their equipment, then use those to make my own machines, it’s still IP theft, even if I didn’t walk out with the machine.

Make all the excuses you want, you’re supporting the theft of other people’s life’s work then trying to claim it’s ethical.

The fact that folks can identify the source of various parts of the output, and that intact watermarks have shown up, shows that it doesn’t work like you think it does.

No, you used it to inform your style.

You didn’t drop his art on to a screenprinter, smash someone else’s art on top, then try to sell t-shirts.

Trying to compare any of this to how one, individual, human learns is such a wildly inaccurate way to justify stealing a someone’s else’s work product.

Yes, it was.

One human artist can, over a life time, learn from a few artists to inform their style.

These AI setups are telling ALL the art from ALL the artists and using them as part of a for profit business.

There is no ethical stance for letting billion dollar tech firms hoover up all the art ever created to the try and remix it for profit.