- 0 Posts
- 21 Comments
Look at the timestamps, the conversation is from top to bottom. So technically I guess he tried to answer, but he probably missed the answer and instead had a tone that happened to match exactly how a scammy email would sound.
If legitimate, it’s probably better that they didn’t get to successfully automating spamming the support system. Nothing screams legitimate requests like bot spamming… Don’t know the tone of his follow ups, but best to take a breath and reset their tone and try again, asking what other details aside from nickname can be used, given their steam access.
A bit off topic, but that’s pretty much a result of “prompt stuffing”. Your prompt is processed into a good old fashioned search query and then the search results are sort of added to the prompt. Basically from the LLM perspective, it seems a request to rework your source material in a manner consistent with your prompt. The LLM is fed the correct answer, so it doesn’t have to answer, it just has to reword the input.
Most will just guess on the spot.
Well no, most would say “I don’t know”. Which an LLM is unlikely to do unless the training material shows that a consistent answer is “I don’t know”. It will give a fact shaped answer that may fail, but it’s at least ‘shaped’ right.
Again, the big problem is not that LLMs are just useless because they can’t do these little specific tricks, it’s that it is important to continue calibrating expectations, particularly as, at this point, people have bet trillions on these things and that’s a lot of money to have people lie and cheat their way to make everyone overestimate them. Without counter perspective, I think 90% of my coworkers would have been laid off already as the executives just soak in unchallenged marketing bullshit from the big players.
Well, not quite, because they don’t have criteria for ‘right’.
They do basically say ‘generate 10x more content than usual, then dispose of 90% of it’, and that surprisingly seems to largely improve results, but at no point is it ‘grading’ the result.
Some people have bothered to provide ‘chain of thought’ examples and even when it’s largely ‘correct’, you may see a middle step be utterly flubbed in a way that should have fouled the whole thing, but the error is oddly isolated and doesn’t carry forward into the subsequent content, as would be the case in actual ‘reasoning’.
For background NPC, sure nothing lost, at least nothing lost that isn’t already being lost in the “put big exclamations/question marks over NPCs with something actually important to say”. Once upon a time there was a nice experience of evaluating NPC text to determine if there’s an interesting side quest or at least an interesting side story playing out in the dialog. But with the push for more credible ambient NPC instead of big cities with like 25 people living in them that has been significantly lost anyway.
Yeah, already things were getting harder to follow as people went to address the “strangely sparse cities” problem by flooding the environment with way more stuff aiming for more plausible, but it’s more than you can ever consume and it’s generally hard to know when you are actually supposed to pay attention or not. Finding interesting side quests among the flavor text used to be a thing, but now the flavor text is just overwhelmingly too much for that.
Of course, there’s recognition of that and games start putting indications of “THIS RANDOM NPC HAS SOMETHING TO SAY” bright over anyone vaguely important. So I suppose in that context NPC flavor text vomit might as well be AI since it’s been clearly indicated as stuff to ignore as background noise. Still disappointed in the decline of “is this important or not” determination being organic.
I think there’s room for someone to recognize there’s an utterly generic facet to an otherwise creative work. If you for example know you just want a generic night skybox, I don’t think there’s going to be more quality by doing it directly.
However that sentiment carried forward to the assets will rapidly degrade the experience similar to using stock assets.
Feel like “anytime it’s good for” could be subjective.
There are likely folks who think they can just vibe code up an unreal tutorial and say AI was good at “all of it”.
if some boilerplate mechanics are AI code completions, or you had it generate a skybox for you, ok. If it’s generating a significant chunk of your “foreground” assets, then I’m likely to find out as disinteresting as the titles that have leaned hard on stock assets.
With the caveat that we can accommodate everyone so long as sufficient people put in their fair share of effort. In an ideal world that will mean very short working hours and/or nicely early retirement/late entry into the work force.
Certainly the usual talking heads are spoiled rich guys that have never known labor and have not done their fair share, but it is a difficult thing to balance to make sure we do take care of each other but make sure enough people are engaged to successfully do that
Using it from chrome is how I use it.
Two limitations:
- You cannot let someone else control your screen. This is fine by me, I never want someone controlling my screen anyway. If I want to collaborate with them, I use any number of better ways to get them shared access.
- You cannot control other folks screen. This is often a challenge as too many people offer this up as the only way to remotely help them. I hate doing this because even in Windows the experience is utter garbage, but sometimes the other party just forces my hand.
Well mine is pretty petty. Every time I start up my system I’m spammed by epic advertisements in the lower right. It’s just so obnoxious, particularly since I’m on my couch and using my controller, so I have to pick up keyboard to dismiss those.
I’m so lazy I haven’t bothered to investigate options to be fair, but broadly speaking I don’t like how much it screams “look at me, look at me!” when I had no intention of interacting with their store/launcher at all that time.
Embargoes do get a bit of backlash sometimes, but not nearly enough.
Why should a full embargo get backlash? They are trying to get input for an understanding, controlled population before unleashing it on a wider public. The whole idea is that the preview is not representative enough to start setting expectations for everyone. But it is far enough along to get the general idea and get feedback to address.
I am constantly testing pretty well known products in advance of their release and they are frequently crap. Like one thing I’m working on hasn’t been able to work at all for a week due to some bugs that something I did triggered and they haven’t provided an update yet. However when they actually are available to the general customers, they are pretty much always solid and get good reviews. If I publicly reviewed it, it could tank this product even though no one could possibly hit most of the stuff that I hit.
A full embargo seems fair. The selective embargo seems like an unfair idea, but also is a bad idea. If everyone knows they are allowed to talk about it, but only the good parts, then people will be speculating on what is not said. One product I tested had someone fanboying so hard about it they were begging the product team to lift the embargo so they could share their enthusiasm. They said no, they didn’t want partially informed internet speculation running until they could address all aspects of the product publicly, and frankly there was too much crappy parts even if he was over the moon over the product and didn’t really use the bad parts.
I suppose I could see being uncomfortable with the “testers” also being the likely “reviewers”, because your are developing to the tastes of specific reviewers and tailoring for a good review in the end even if those reviewers aren’t fully representative of the general population. It’s easier to get a few dozen key influencers happy by catering to them/making them feel special, than releasing a product and hoping you hit their sensibilities.
It’s not about them being dumb, it’s them not caring about the particulars of their platform. Can it play some mobile games? Can it keep them connected to their friends through text and social media? Once it meets those criteria, that’s enough.
Then comes the next challenge: social status. Particularly during the teen years, social status is a keen focus and every little thing is part of the equation. iMessage versus SMS and RCS means that an Android user can’t tell their peer is an iPhone, but iPhones highlight Android users very obviously. So if either platform might align with social groups, Apple is the one that makes it easy to identify “outsiders” and ostracize them.
So knowing that, fundamentally, both platforms will give them what basic stuff they want in a handheld computer, so they just care about the ability to use the differences to identify “in” versus “out” in every possible way that presents itself. Apple does that most obviously.
Right, but it says “Mario”, and that was not the first game that featured the character.