I Love Deutsch's Ideas. I Still Think We're Pinballs.

I want to say something up front: I'm not here to dunk on David Deutsch. I've read The Beginning of Infinity (thanks for the copy, Cody). The stuff on good explanations, on knowledge as the thing that makes people and ideas hard to kill, on optimism as a discipline, genuinely great. I'm a fan.

But I think the free will part is where the whole framework gets used to protect a conclusion Deutsch wanted to be true, rather than one his own method would actually deliver as true. And I think a lot of people in his orbit have accepted it a little too easily, because it's flattering and because he's right about almost everything else.

So let's poke at it.

The chain nobody has broken

Here's my argument (well, it's a well known one held by smarter people than me but it's the one that I cannot shake as of yet). It's not subtle and I don't think it needs to be:

Quantum level: particles do what the rules make them do. No choosing. Classical physics: same, laws all the way down. Chemistry is physics with extra steps; molecules react the way their structure and energy states force them to. DNA, RNA, cells: chemistry in aggregate, doing what chemistry does. Brains: organisms' most elaborate trick, but built from the same atoms, running on the same rules, no exemption clause anywhere in the stack (in other words, clean computer code).

So when a brain "decides," what physically happened? A configuration of neurons, shaped entirely by genetics and every experience that configuration was ever exposed to, ran an electrochemical cascade that did, at every single step, what physics and chemistry compelled it to do. It felt like a choice. Feeling like a choice and being one are not the same claim, and nobody in the Deutsch camp has ever shown me the actual physical mechanism where a real fork opens up: a point where the next state isn't simply what the prior state made inevitable. They gesture at a different level of description instead. That's not the same thing as finding the fork.

And yes, this cuts both ways, and I mean for it to. Neither of us "chose" our position on this. David Deutsch didn't select free will as his view any more freely than the copper atom selected its spot on the statue. He's a pinball who writes very good books.

The statue trick, and why I think it's a dodge

The best comeback I know is the statue: why is there a particular atom of copper at the tip of a bronze statue's nose? You could trace it to the Big Bang (true, but useless). Or you could say: there was a war, a leader, a grateful public, a sculptor, a foundry. That's a good explanation in Deutsch's own technical sense, hard to vary, and it's where the real explanatory content lives. Free will, the argument goes, works the same way. Redescribing a decision in terms of neurons is worse, not more true.

I think this is a sleight of hand, and I want to say exactly where. "Good explanation" was built as a standard for which description is useful and informative. Somewhere along the way it got quietly promoted into a standard for what's metaphysically real, and nobody defending free will this way seems to notice the promotion happened. Those are two different jobs. A weather forecaster's model is the "good explanation" for whether it'll rain tomorrow (nobody's going to model every air molecule), and that in no way implies the atmosphere has genuinely open, uncaused branch points where it "chooses" to rain. Usefulness of a description is not evidence that the underlying process wasn't fully determined. If you think it is evidence, that's the actual claim you have to defend, and I haven't seen it defended. I've seen it assumed.

So here's the direct question, and I'd like an actual answer rather than the statue again: was the sculptor's decision caused, given the exact prior state of his brain and body and history, or wasn't it? If yes, you've just conceded the pinball. If no, you need to point to the physical mechanism that isn't caused, not a better vocabulary for describing a fully caused process.

The two things I won't pretend

I'll grant two things, because a Socratic argument that never concedes anything isn't Socratic, it's a monologue with question marks.

Quantum mechanics has real randomness in it, not merely complexity we haven't modeled yet. Fine. But randomness doesn't buy you free will: a decision caused by a coin flip in your skull isn't freer than one caused by a falling domino, it's just less predictable. Anyone reaching for quantum indeterminacy to rescue free will is smuggling in the same confusion I just accused the statue argument of: mistaking "not determined" for "chosen by me." Those aren't the same thing, and I don't think either side gets to have it both ways.

And no, I'm not saying the system of making choices is fake or that you should stop planning your life. Whatever this system is, it clearly weighs options, regrets, plans ahead. That machinery is doing real work. "It does real work" doesn't settle whether it was free, though, and I think that's exactly where a lot of people quietly stop asking questions because the alternative feels bad.

Where I actually land

I still think the pinball is the best explanation we have, not despite Deutsch's own standard, but by it. It's the account that's hardest to vary while covering every piece of evidence, from quarks to Churchill's nose to the sentence I'm typing right now. The "reasons and creativity" story is real and useful at its own level of description. But usefulness isn't an exemption from causation, and I think Deutsch has let a good rule of thumb about explanations quietly turn into a metaphysical escape hatch, because the alternative (that even his book was just where the pinball landed as it set of multitudes more) is uncomfortable to sit with.

If you think I've mangled the argument, don't hand me the statue again. Show me the actual fork in the physical chain: the place where the next state of a brain isn't simply what the prior state made inevitable. I'll go looking with you. But I'm not holding my breath.

This has been a word document (actually a LibreOffice doc) for a few years now. Unfinished, unpolished and quite frankly, I didn't feel compelled to finish it. Cody gave us all a copy of DD's book some time ago and I thoroughly enjoyed it but at some point at a game day at Cody's house, I remember the convo heading into "free will" territory. More often than not, I don't tend to assert myself as much as I'd like when we're physically together because there are 4 of us vying for speaking time simultaneously on any given topic. So I started writing the following down with the intention of giving it to you all. But "this and that" put it on the back burner for more than a few years.

Anyway, I decided to get it done today. (The only AI used was as a thesaurus. The entire post is my writing)...

I like that idea.

@Josh said:

Even the nutshell is daunting. It's a bit unclear what the goal is. Are we trying to establish ourselves as a service provider for publishers? For game creators? Or are we seeking services ourselves?

It doesn't matter. What does matter is that being a team of 4 individuals with complimentary skills that make up a "studio", that has done what it claims to do with regard to game development in early phases, shows that we are not fucking around. We don't give a shit if anyone contacts us for services. If they do, it will most likely have to do with digital versioning of projects, which I'll gladly do, or possibly some oddly shaped game pieces needing to be 3D printed(Cody is free to take it and charge what he wants or purposely overcharge to discourage the order). But again, getting business is not the point.

@Josh said:

This doesn't seem like something that happens normally in business.

It does. Even competitors work together (See Anthropic, Google and XAI recently). It happens less often the bigger the entities and more often the smaller the entities. I have loads of stories of when collaboration helped my businesses and where my businesses helped another business. But again, this is not the point.

@Josh said:

Normally, creators seek the services of publishers or publishers seek the services of manufacturers. I'm not saying it couldn't happen.

Creators, while they do seek the services of publishers, they have a lot of work to do on their own before they get to that phase/stage. Need proof? That's us. Is there a niche market for what we are good at and what we are doing for our own titles? Maybe. But again, this is not the point.

@Josh said:

Publishers don't need a 4-man playtesting agency. Any games they have in development would already have been thoroughly playtested.

Not true of smaller, indie publishers who are basically just people like us with a bit more money than us doing "self" publishing. But again, not the point.

@Josh said:

This time around, I really think we need to approach this from a perspective of educating ourselves about how things work instead of trying to explain what we think might be worth a shot.

We shall educate ourselves over the course of the next 7 months. That is part of the plan.

@Josh said:

If anything, I think we could call ourselves a design and development firm and offer prototyping services to other game creators. But that wouldn't have anything to do with getting KRED published.

This is the point. And yes it does have everything to do with KRED. That gives us CRED when we shake hands with our first publisher. This is the entire point.

In summary, none of the questions Josh raised are wrong. They're just not the point. The point is singular: get KRED in front of a publisher and be taken seriously when we do.

Everything else, the studio identity, the complementary skill set, the dev-phase services angle, is infrastructure for that moment. It's not a business pivot. It's not a new revenue stream we're chasing. It's the answer to the question every publisher is silently asking when a stranger walks up to their table: "Why should I believe you?"

Plan that Josh and I mulled over is here. This is not set in stone but is meant as a starting point for us to discuss in order to get shit done in support of Kred getting into publishers' hands in the best possible conditions for success.

https://montoyahome.com/kred/plan2027/plan.pdf

By now, you guys have seen my "I got a plan, Stan!" comment in our Line thread. Some of it was discussed last Sunday with Josh. I intend to elaborate here and answer any questions.

What the plan is: A road map and checklist that will expand and amplify our perceived value beyond just the possible future revenue of a game we want to publish.

Why the need for a plan like this: Publishers of board games invest hundreds of thousands of dollars between marketing, manufacturing, and distribution on a single game title alone, so obviously they don't willy-nilly take just any board game on as an investment project. They want as close to a "sure thing" as possible and as much of the "hard" work done for them before even considering a new game and whether or not it fits in with their existing product line and company mission. So our plan, in a nutshell, is to not only do that work for Kred, but to establish that we are in a position to offer services that help aspiring game creators, as well as small to mid-sized publishers, with "road to publish" services.

What the plan is not: It is not any specific commitment, long-term or otherwise. This plan does not require much more effort or work than we are already doing for Kred. The fact that we offer services does not mean we get any takers. If we do, we'll price accordingly when the time comes. For now, that is not the point.

What is the point? Imagine yourself as a game publisher. You're always on the lookout for that next big title that will translate to a decent profit and add further value to your product line. You're running a booth at a board game event and suddenly you are cold-approached by some guys with a game that looks interesting and possibly might fit with what you're looking for. Maybe they seem to have crossed their t's and dotted their i's, brought a nice prototype, a sell-sheet, etc., and even present well — but you don't know anything about these guys. You're probably thinking you don't have time to look into their game in detail.

Then one of them hands you a business card and says they offer development phase services for creators of tabletop games.

Instantly, what does this tell you? I won't make a list here, but suffice to say it answers a lot of questions about these four guys. At the very least, you know they've invested a lot — time, work, and money — in their game development already, they've done their homework, and most likely know the position a publisher is in. These guys are not here to waste your time. You just may give their game a deeper look when you get home.

What's happening here? At the very least, networking. Exchanging business cards can lead to further contact down the road for other projects, referrals to other publishers, and even a source in the business that can be contacted for inquiries. In the best case scenario, a relationship with a publisher and possibly an exchange of services. Regardless of publishing our game, publishers we build relationships with can send us a bit of business when someone prematurely pitches a raw, underdeveloped game to them and is in need of some of our services.

What else are we doing at the Osaka event? Whether or not we get Kred looked at by any publishers, let's emphasize that we play games — a lot of games (we can prove it by showing our stat-app page) — and invite them to contact us if they need playtesting of any games they might have in development. This we'll offer free of charge.

Our webpage for our services should speak volumes about who we are and what we do. Josh and I have said we are willing to put our mugs on the site in the developer profile page. Hopefully you guys are as well.

https://montoyahome.com/tfdstudios/index.html

(The website is merely a placeholder with a general scaffold. No need to nitpick on words and design just yet — there's lots to be done here!)

In order to get Kred on the proverbial map, we're going to need to make our presence known through social media, participate in several tabletop game communities, and make a good name for ourselves. Branding is important, and filling a niche with "development phase" services under the TFD name makes our quest to publish Kred more achievable by establishing credibility, growing our audience, and creating value long before the game reaches the market.

Kinda cool that in the middle of doing shit in Queensberry, it will Google search when asked to.

Google just launched Gemini 3.5 Flash to mixed reviews. One of the main criticisms is it’s not as cheap as advertised and is much more expensive than 3.1 Flash. While true, I think they weren’t trying to replace 3.1 “Flash”. They were trying to replace 3.1 “Pro”, and I think they achieved that. I’ve been on Google’s ¥2900/month plan for the last month and have been on Claude’s and Codex’s paid plans before too. My assessment, even after different models have been coming out, is kind of unchanged and easy to explain. Not sure if you guys agree but I see the three like this…

Claude Code (Opus and Sonnet)– Best for starting completely new projects from ground zero. It understands and follows through on entire PRD’s the best of all three in this area. Opus 4.7 seems to go down rabbit holes though, often eating more cookies than I wanted to feed it.

Codex (GPT 5.4. Not sure about 5.5)– Absolutely the best for hunting down bugs efficiently. Usually one-shots the fixes. Although it seems efficient(don’t think I ever hit my daily limits), it’s slower to finish its work.

Gemini 3.1 Pro & Google Stitch – Most cost effective of all three. Best front-end designs period. Has Google search at its fingertips when you want it to check for options for feature building. As of today, 3.5 Flash is supposedly as good as 3.1 and is 4 times faster. I can verify the speed for sure. However, it seems to eat twice as many cookies as 3.1 for the same job. Price per token in/out, while cheaper, makes it a wash. You get the same job done by both 3.1 Pro and 3.5 Flash, roughly the same price, but I guess 3.5 Flash gives you extra speed.

Summary...The worst part of Gemini models is that the only way it can one-shot hard bug fixes is to give it pictures, and to explain the step-by-steps the user did to encounter the bug. Codex didn’t need any of that. I could just say the shit don’t work and it fixed it while I watched a YouTube video. Claude was decent at fixing shit but seemed to try too much other shit in the process. I mean, why was Claude attempting to start a game of Kred? It can’t do that without multiple players! Lol. Codex may be the most well-rounded of the three with regard to coding. It’s not great at design. It’s not great at keeping all of my intent on new projects. But in brick-by-brick mode(which includes bug fixes), it’s the best. Claude’s 5-hour limits are infuriating but the models are super smart(they seem to get and keep my intent no matter what). Gemini is the jack of all trades, in the sense that the pro plan gives you access to the entire Google AI ecosystem (Nano Banana, Stitch, Antigravity, NotebookLM) but needs refined/detailed prompts.

For now, I’m gonna go for one more month with Google then see how Anthropic is treating their customers. I might go back to them. Not sure I’ll go back to Open AI just yet. Fast bug fixes are great, but not worth it based on just that. One thing that I keep in mind is that I build games. I am not trying to solve complicated math or science problems. Sonnet, GPT 5.4 on medium, Gemini Flash have gotten shit done for me in the past. Cranking up to Opus, GPT 5.4 high and Gemini Pro models for shit in the weeds has worked out fine too, meaning I don’t necessarily need to pay for the model that out-benchmarks all the others. It’s not the models...it’s me and how I learn to use the models to their strengths.

One more thing...

I don't fault Bill. He's an entertainer doing what entertainers do to get a laugh or a reaction. Entertainers don't have to be 100% accurate. I enjoy Bill from time to time and he flares his elbows out on almost all topics he covers. It's why he's on HBO and I'm not. LOL

As I said in Line, I generally don't take any major issues with what Maher is saying in the video. The main issue I DO have is the context in which he ignores; that is that antisemitism is not the same as being critical of the Israeli government's handling of the war in Gaza. He seems to conflate criticism of a government of a country as antisemitism. There's enough antisemitism without this conflation already, so I don't know why he does this. Pre-1940's, the Jews didn't have a country, so his analogy of that time, compared to now falls kinda flat. But his overall points are fine. Israel has a right to defend itself. There are people out there that hate Jews AND Israel, but those people blatantly identify themselves. Maher appears to work a little too hard to add people like me in his Ven diagram section of antisemites. I can say in the same breath that I disagree with the tactics Netanyahu is currently using in Gaza, but agree with the initial actions taken that fateful October. The majority of critics out there on the left are similar to me. Not pro-Israel, not anti-Israel. Simply calling balls and strikes as we see them.

Section I: Apocalyptic Arsenal and Unilateral Nuclear Authority

To objectively evaluate global danger, one must first quantify the destructive capacity available to the leader in question. Adolf Hitler’s ambitions were historically unprecedented in their cruelty, but his means of executing them were strictly circumscribed by the technological realities of the mid-20th century. Hitler relied on kinetic warfare, that is infantry, armor, and early, geographically limited ballistic missiles (the V-2). Because his destructive capacity was finite and conventional, it was possible for an alliance of global powers to physically intervene, endure the conflict, and ultimately stop him. Humanity, though battered, could survive the maximum extent of his technological reach.

In stark contrast, the modern American presidency carries with it unilateral, unchecked authority over the most devastating nuclear arsenal in human history. As Commander-in-Chief, Donald Trump possessed the sole authority to launch thousands of strategic nuclear warheads within minutes. A fraction of this arsenal is mathematically capable of triggering a nuclear winter, destroying the global biosphere, and effectively ending organized human life on Earth. The magnitude of this power shifts the paradigm of danger: Hitler required years of mobilization to destroy a continent; a modern U.S. president requires only minutes to destroy the species.
However, the argument that Trump is more dangerous relies not just on this baseline capacity, but on his unprecedented volatility. While previous modern presidents have held this exact same nuclear authority, they generally adhered to a doctrine of deterrence, actively constructing and maintaining diplomatic guardrails to prevent miscalculation. Donald Trump actively dismantled these guardrails. His administration oversaw the withdrawal from critical, stabilizing non-proliferation agreements, most notably the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, or the Iran Nuclear Deal).

Coupled with highly erratic public rhetoric that routinely threatens nuclear annihilation, this systematic dismantling of international arms control dramatically increases the statistical probability of nuclear conflict. This is not a partisan conjecture, but an empirical assessment made by the world's leading scientific and security experts. During Trump’s presidency, citing the breakdown of arms control frameworks and the unpredictable escalation of global tensions, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists advanced the Doomsday Clock to "100 seconds to midnight"—the closest humanity has ever been to global catastrophe in the history of the Clock. By combining civilization-ending technological capacity with the deliberate removal of international safety guardrails, Trump represents a level of immediate, existential danger that no mid-century dictator could have ever achieved.

To be continued...

Q2: Mishandling sensitive government information and taking documents home has been an issue happening among politicians on both sides of the aisle for decades. However, upon leaving office, President Trump...

A. Supported bipartisan legislation to tighten the enforcement of the Presidential Records Act

B. Voluntarily invited the National Archives to inspect his residences for accidentally packed documents

C. Updated digital security protocols to ensure his post-presidential team could not access classified files

D. Took highly classified documents to his private club, stored them in a public ballroom and a bathroom shower, and actively obstructed government efforts to retrieve them.

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-indictment-classified-documents-timeline-a8a4369a4731a54160a2ec703d27457b

Q1: Insider trading has long been a wart on Washington political goings-on, all parties in fact. President Trump...

A. Requested his DOJ to investigate insider trading in government agencies

B. Asked Congress to draft a bill to illegalize insider trading practices

C. Brought the issue to light in his State of the Union speech

D. Joined in on the all the insider trading fun

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/stock-trade-disclosure-reveals-trump-111526929.html

Introduction & Methodology: Defining "Danger"

Any comparative analysis involving Adolf Hitler must begin with a clear and unequivocal acknowledgment of historical reality: Hitler is the architect of the Holocaust, the orchestrator of systemic genocide, and the primary instigator of a global war that claimed tens of millions of lives. He represents the ultimate benchmark for human malice. This submission does not attempt to revise history, diminish the suffering of his victims, or argue that Donald Trump possesses a comparable level of ideological evil. However, evaluating geopolitical threats requires a strict methodological distinction between evil and danger. Evil is a measure of malice, intent, and historical atrocities; it is a ledger of the past. Danger, conversely, is an objective measure of capacity, scale, and the potential for future, systemic destruction.

To illustrate this methodological distinction, consider a micro-level analogy...

A serial killer armed with a blade possesses boundless malice and profound evil, but his capacity for systemic destruction is physically limited. In contrast, an erratic or self-serving engineer at the controls of a failing nuclear reactor may lack homicidal intent entirely, yet he poses a fundamentally greater danger to the survival of a surrounding city due to the scale of the tools at his disposal. Therefore, the jury must evaluate the resolution not by asking "who committed the worst crimes," but by asking "who possessed, and in Trump's case continues to possess, the highest capacity to trigger existential, civilization-ending consequences." When viewed through this lens of objective hazard—measuring 21st-century technological capabilities, the acceleration of planetary ecological collapse, and the destabilization of modern global security—the mathematical potential for total global annihilation under Donald Trump severely eclipses the 1940s-era limitations of Adolf Hitler...and Trump is far from done.

Because the amount of writing that I feel needs to go into this, I will do it in installments or volumes and, for my enjoyment, it will be written in a legal format which is designed for a jury’s consumption. A.I. (Google Gemini) was used for data and references, as well as clarifications I needed, but not in writing of the following “explanation”, as Cody would put it. “We” is used throughout as I am representing We the people of planet Earth in the prosecution of the case against Trump.

Is Donald John Trump worse than Adolf Hitler was? Yes. I am convinced that indeed he is.

Executive Summary

While Adolf Hitler is undeniably responsible for the most horrific deliberate atrocities in human history, this submission argues that Donald Trump represents a mathematically and existentially greater objective danger to the world. This argument establishes a rigorous methodological distinction between historical evil (malice and past body counts) and danger, which must be measured by a leader's capacity, scale, and potential to cause total global destruction. We demonstrate this modern threat through three main pillars, beginning with the apocalyptic scale of nuclear volatility, highlighted by the Doomsday Clock's unprecedented advancement during his tenure. Second, we analyze his deliberate acceleration of the climate crisis which as a pan-generational threat that, unlike mid-20th-century conventional warfare, holds the capacity to end all organized human life. Finally, we examine his model of 21st-century transactional imperialism. Evidenced by his attempts to purchase Greenland and the unprecedented January 2026 military abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro during "Operation Absolute Resolve", we argue that his blatant disregard for international sovereignty actively destabilizes the post-WWII global order and creates a "might-is-right" paradigm that risks catastrophic wider conflicts. Ultimately, this brief concludes that modern technological and ecological capacities elevate contemporary geopolitical threats far beyond the destructive limits of the 1940s.

Here are my primary criticisms of your position regarding how society should handle massive technological changes (i.e. AI data centers):

1. Resource Asymmetry

You suggest that local communities can adequately negotiate how data centers fit into their "local economy and culture." In reality, local municipal governments are drastically outmatched by trillion-dollar tech corporations. A local city council or zoning board, often composed of part-time officials with limited budgets, doesn’t have the legal firepower, technical expertise, or financial stamina to effectively negotiate with companies like Google, Microsoft, or Meta. Without federal or state backing, local governments can be, and are, routinely outmaneuvered and overpowered by corporate lawyers or blindsided by sophisticated lobbying.

2. "Race to the Bottom"/ Spillover Effects

Relying on only local control for massive infrastructure creates a corporate "race to the bottom." Here’s what I mean...If Town A demands strict environmental protections and fair taxation for a data center, the tech company will simply move to Town B, which might offer massive tax breaks and lax regulations just to secure a few jobs. Going further, AI data centers consume MASSIVE amounts of electricity and water. If one town approves a massive data center, it can strain the power grid (we gotta play this game soon!) or deplete reservoirs for the entire surrounding region. Localized decision-making fails to account for these massive issues that don’t respect borders.

3. Civic Engagement

From reading your post I gather that you assume a highly engaged, rationally debating local populace. In the real world, local civic engagement is famously dysfunctional. Local elections often have shitty voter turnout, meaning decisions are usually driven by a tiny, vocal minority. Also, local boards are highly susceptible to corporate interests buying influence over local officials or the paralyzing “Not In My Back Yard” stuff, where communities reject infrastructure based on irrational fears or property values rather than the merits you argue for.

4. Complex Regulation is NOT "Totalitarianism"

You equate federal intervention (in this case a national moratorium) with the elitist, mind-controlling totalitarianism of 1984. This is a crazy oversimplification that ignores the scale of the technology. AI and the infrastructure required to run it are matters of national security, macroeconomic stability, and national energy. I don’t think it’s a good idea to leave the regulation of nuclear power plants or aerospace engineering strictly to local town halls, because the technical complexity necessitates federal "intermediaries" (past administrations employed experts and specialized agencies). Acknowledging that specialized experts are needed to regulate highly complex systems, in my view, is not treating ordinary people as "dumb" it is a pragmatic and functional necessity of modern civilization.

5. Paradox of Rejecting Intermediaries

You quoted Brivael Le Pogam, who says socialism and centralized power rely on an "intermediary class," going further as to say that AI might destroy this class. However, you fail to recognize that tech billionaires and corporate CEOs are themselves an immensely powerful, unelected intermediary class. By stripping the elected federal government of its power to regulate or pause these companies, you aren’t returning power to the "common people" practically speaking, you are just transferring that power from elected federal officials to unelected tech executives.

In summary...

I just see your view of the "town hall" as very 18th-century, and not mapping onto 21st-century realities. While local input is good, relying solely on local critical thinking to regulate super advanced, massively resource-intensive, transnational technology leaves ordinary people more vulnerable to corporate exploitation, not less.

@Josh said in Digital Copyright law, AI and knowledge creation:

Anyway, someone invented the circular saw a long time ago and now how many brands of circular saw are there. They might all have their own patent but they all do the same job. Humans are probably going to have to get over it. I mean we're not even talking about anyones intelectual property anymore if Claude wrote itself. Sorry Anthropic, you are entitled to shit as far as I can tell.

Yeah. It may have been easier to track intellectual property in the past, at least the majority of it. In the 2000's and 2010's it evolved into a whack-a-mole exercise. Now, it's almost full saturation and it's global. Laws might need a bit of tweaking as we get further and further into the age of AI.

If possible, I’d appreciate any help you all can give to Kred Online’s final bug-fishing expedition.

As I said last Sunday, the game works. However, I know there are some things that may not have copied over from the old test mode to this full multi-player version.

How to test:

1. Keep this forum thread open so you can immediately log issues as they occur.
2. Start a 3 player game and open 3 separate browser windows (I.e one Edge, one Firefox and one Chrome or 2 or three Chrome browsers logged in with separate Google accounts) This is important because the same browser will keep recognizing the same player number for each game session.
3. When starting a 3-player game, be sure to select “Skip Draft Phase”. The draft phase works fine and this is just time consuming to have to do it each time we test.
4. Make move(s), play tiles honestly and dishonestly as well as expose dishonest moves and do challenges here and there.
5. When something fails to work as it should or something odd occurs, note it here in the forum and include any steps you can remember that will help me replicate the issue on my end.