Tim Willits doesn't think Rideshare's generative AI is damaging Saber…

Believe it or not, I don't actually like to be all doom and gloom about new technologies like AI—it's just that's what the world keeps handing me. So I'll be damned if I don't take the time to report on something actually positive about it when I can, and I'm hesitantly optimistic that Microsoft's newly-published code of conduct for AI training and operation is one such opportunity.

The overall goal is the same as that which Microsoft has proclaimed before: "humanist superintelligence (HSI)." Now, though, it's expanded much more on what this means. Though the company notes the current code is a work in progress and is opening its doors for feedback.

In a summary list explaining the code of conduct, Microsoft lists ten guidelines:

1. "People matter more than AI. The whole document in 5 words.
2. The idea of model welfare is wrong. AIs should not have rights or legal personhood.
3. An MAI Model should not do anything to meaningfully violate this Code of Conduct.
4. If it’s finish the job or break the Code, it fails the job.
5. We’re not racing to build a superintelligence that can slip its own leash.
6. Interruptible, correctable, shut-down-able. If it isn’t, we don’t ship it.
7. No neuralese. If humans can’t understand it, humans can’t oversee it.
8. Our AI should make you sharper, not dependent.
9. Pluralism, yes. Moral relativism, no.
10. We’re as clear about what our AI must never do as about what it will do."

All of this seems great to me, and there are some things that I'm especially happy to see. Specifically, point number two: "The idea of model welfare is wrong. AIs should not have rights or legal personhood."

This isn't armchair philosophy: there are actual people (potentially influential ones at that) out there arguing that AI should be ascribed moral rights and so on. This is dangerous because if we start ascribing rights to AI then we may put them on an even footing with us and potentially start thinking we have to do things for 'them' that are to our detriment. Such as keeping the whole AI industry afloat despite any negative effects to real people that are actually conscious.

Speaking of which, Microsoft also states that AI "is not conscious and should not be designed to imitate consciousness." Bingo. I couldn't agree more.

I have some hang-ups about 'humanism' as it is usually defined and practiced today, given that in addition to the baseline human-focused perspective it is also often situated alongside superfluous and misguided doctrines, such as in scientism. Here, though, Microsoft at least seems to be referring to humanism in the simple sense of ensuring that AI is designed to be human-first, putting human control, values, goals, and safety at the forefront.

One potential cause of confusion that I noticed, however, concerns the focus on "plural values":

"Humanity’s greatest strength is its variety and diversity of cultures, ideas, and values. We believe that AI should support a wide range of experiences, worldviews, and beliefs. Humanist AI is built to encompass this diversity of traditions, contexts, and forms of flourishing. Pluralism does not mean neutrality toward harm or that anything goes. Humanism is rooted in broad, inclusive human values such as human dignity, safety, autonomy, and fundamental human rights."

Sounds good, right? But as someone with a background in philosophy who is privy to the kinds of debates that can occur when spending time thoroughly interrogating ethics—debates that likely occur even in the boards of AI ethics committees and so on—I think we need to be aware what a principled problem this poses.

It's not straightforwardly clear that it is possible to both encompass a plurality of values and simultaneously guard against harm. Microsoft makes clear that it's talking about "broad, inclusive human values" such as fundamental human rights, but what about when the rubber meets the road in specific cases where values conflict?

Here is probably not the place, nor is now the time, to discuss specific and likely contentious examples, but the point is that we are always evaluating things from a particular perspective, and as such will always be rejecting competing values. It's a noble goal to attempt to account for diverse values while preventing harm and rejecting moral relativism, but exactly what this means in practice—what constitutes harm and which values are permissible—will be precisely the question.

I suppose in the rest of this code of practice we at least now have some idea of where those particular value flags are being planted. Assuming isn't all just talk, of course.

Let's skip the preamble: I am Mark Zuckerberg now. The original Mark Zuckerberg? Who cares? He's knocked out in a ditch somewhere. Whatever. He's the past; I am the future. Specifically, the future of Mark Zuckerberg, who I am.

The latest mod I have installed into my increasingly uncontrollable build of Grand Theft Auto 5 is LifeInvader Business Mod, which grants you the ability to buy Rockstar's thinly veiled (which is to say, not veiled at all) parody of Facebook for the cool sum of a million bucks. I did not actually have a million bucks, but one of the 46,000 other mods I have installed let me grant myself that amount at the office's front door. In real life, this is called quantitative easing.

The mod is actually quite robust. It's not just a matter of buying the website and letting passive income roll in. You get a whole new menu through which you can staff up—acquiring devs of varying levels of talent—expand your server capacity, and even hire security to keep the hoi polloi away. You can donate to charity to buff your business' reputation, and have to keep an eye on staff morale.

Staff morale, by the way, is largely unimpacted by the flying car which has careened through the second floor window and begun gyrating around the server racks, gathering a pursuing swarm of monitors and wastepaper baskets behind it like a Saab pied piper. Nor do they mind, particularly, when armed men burst in and try to shoot their CEO, and they are equally unfazed when that CEO uses his laser vision to turn those men to hot slag.

Actually, while all this was ongoing, the mod kept serving me notifications: staff morale was at a steady 100% because the boss had showed up in the office, which is both appreciated and also not my experience of what happens when the boss shows up in the office. But Facebo—sorry, LifeInvader's developers are made of a different, hardier stock. It's a privilege to own them.

Fire Emblem: Fortune's Weave director Toshiyuki Kusakihara has revealed that the developers of the RPG once considered having eight routes for the game.

Fire Emblem post-Awakening has felt very keen to make things bigger every time. Fates took the Pokemon approach with two different games – you could buy separately, with a third arriving as DLC – then Three Houses took it a step further with the titular three houses (which actually had four routes with side story as DLC).

Engage was a bit more linear, but that seems to be the exception not the rule, as Fortune's Weave is going to one up Three Houses by going for four-tunes (I tried, OK). However, rather than being separate playthroughs, these intersect into one major plotline starring the game's actual protagonist; it sounds huge, but it was apparently going to be even bigger.

In Nintendo's newest "Ask the Developer" interview, Kusakihara explans, "We were very fortunate that so many players enjoyed Fire Emblem: Three Houses, but at the same time, we had an enormous sense of responsibility. We spent a lot of time wondering how we could create something that would surpass it."

He reveals, "we came up with the bold idea of increasing the number of story perspectives from three to eight." While Three Houses' protagonists were working against each other, the idea of stories intersecting into one allowed the game to expand somewhat.

While eight sounds like a mammoth undertaking, the developers seemed to give it a fair chance, with Three Houses director and Engage producer Genki Yokota (who is also a producer on Fortune's Weave) saying, "Going from three perspectives to eight is a pretty big jump. Kusakihara-san had really developed a clear theme for each protagonist, and I felt it could lead to something really interesting." And as games like Octopath Traveller 2 and Live A Live have proved, you can make a compelling RPG with multiple protagonists that eventually cross paths.

However, it proved to be a bit too much, with Yokota explaining, "With eight protagonists, there was almost too much we could do... It seemed like players would have a lot to keep track of, which could make the game feel complicated. So, we decided to put the focus on four of those protagonists instead."

Frankly, I'm pleased. Not only would having more protagonists potentially dilute the stories of each of them, but sometimes a game can feel too big. As much as I adored Three Houses, I didn't have it in me to return for Dimitri or Edelgard's stories after beating Claude's. I was originally worried about the prospect of four in Fortune's Weave, but the idea of them being all one playthrough – even if it takes just as long as doing each of the three houses – makes it seem a bit more manageable.

It's taken 9 years, but a great feature from one of the best 3DS Fire Emblem games returns in Fortune's Weave, and it's probably going to make the tactical JRPG even bigger.

I appreciate that there's a lot more to D&D Arcana Unleashed than finally being able to play as a proper Necromancer, but come on. Yes, being able to summon a dinosaur (?!) is all good and well. But being able to boss around what may as well be a skeleton butler, presumably while cackling like a supervillain? That's too delicious.

A pair of mysticism-infused books just hit shelves, and they boast some killer options for players who want to add a dose of magic to their game. The first, D&D Arcana Unleashed, provides a host of new subclasses (including the aforementioned Necromancer), mystical backgrounds, and feats for spell-slinging fans while also offering plenty of options for Dungeon Masters. Meanwhile, D&D Arcana Unleashed: Deadfall is a high-stakes campaign for levels 11-20 that's pitched as a wizard spy thriller.

I've been hands-on with both of these, and they do feel like a treasure trove for anyone wanting to play magically-themed characters – or DMs who'd like to give their world a more mystical feel. I've got plenty of thoughts on this below, but the TL:DR version is that Arcana Unleashed will be a worthwhile purchase if you love spellcasting characters, or want to create a homebrew world/campaign bursting at the seams with arcane shenanigans. Especially because publisher Wizards of the Coast seems to have cast 'discount' in honor of launch; the books are currently available at record-low prices via Amazon.

Arcana Unleashed is likely to get the most attention, and that's fair enough. It provides eight arcane subclasses for Wizards, Clerics, Fighters, Monks, and Warlocks, not to mention magic-themed backgrounds and a host of original Feats to go with them. These feel worth the price of admission on the whole, especially due to that excellent Necromancer build. While I've got a soft spot for the Arcane Archer (who can use magical arrows to pull off nonsense like sending a foe to an alternate dimension for one turn), the Necromancer comes out of this particularly well.

Before now, it was harder than it should have been to create a fully-fledged Necromancer Wizard; you only got access to key Necromancy spells at a higher level. Arcana Unleashed fixes that, and it makes some clever tweaks that let you lean into those tropes right away. To begin with, it gives you the first-level 'Find Familiar' spell and lets you summon a zombie or skeleton with it instead. That's huge; you no longer need to wait for the third-level Animate Dead to call on deceased corpses for aid. In addition, you can use them as a syphon to regain health. Then, at level six, you can cast Animate Dead once per long rest without expending a spell slot. I could go on, but you probably get the idea. Our own Guides Editor and all-round D&D fan Joel Franey used the Necromancer subclass in a oneshot I ran this month, and he called it the most fun he'd had with the game for a while.

When combined with a host of new spells, magic items, and patrons that can give your party direction, there's a surprising amount here despite the book's comparatively small size. I enjoyed leafing through the world-building section, for example; it was thought-provoking and sparked my imagination.

Speaking of which, the campaign – Deadfall – is also passing the smell test so far. I'm still knee-deep in it, but from what I've read it's a fascinating deep dive into Thay that feels radically different to so much of the Forgotten Realms. As a thoroughly twisted place where mages rule with cruel abandon, it's the perfect adventure site… and the adventure being a "spy thriller" gives it a radically different air too. As a case in point, one of the early missions reminds me of Hitman; you've got to take out a cadre of villains, but how you do so is up to you. Cue an Ocean's Eleven 'planning' montage.

In short, I'm having a lot more fun than I'd expected with this duo of books; even though they're shorter than many typical D&D releases, they provide endless options.

Hopefully this is a sign of things to come; D&D head promises to fix "very loud, very public missteps" with "a new spirit and energy" for the game.

• See all upcoming D&D products at Amazon