- 0 Posts
- 46 Comments
I don’t know if it was really a false flag. Nazis did start using the OK symbol for a time, and I think that was the point. It was built to be smoke and mirrors.
I do believe a lot of channers thought that it was just a joke. I mean, that ambiguity is what makes the dog whistle what it is.
But yeah, it’s a pretty lame magic show when all your tricks are, like, doing a Charlottesville but saying you’re not.
Yeah, that’s a tough one.
I’d say “well, don’t,” but that’s pretty obviously useless. :p
I think I can say this much, though: Silent Hill, being so metaphorical, it’s kind of built like a big puzzle? It’s okay to “not get it” while you’re playing. Most of the stuff I know I’m pretty sure I picked up from fan wikis later on.
So, easier said than done, but: try not to think so much, haha.
The remake is also a little better about explaining its own plot, I think just by being a little more obvious. So, by the end, some things might click into place a little more.
And yeah, the sound design, (minor early game spoiler) have you noticed that >!the radio!< >!is a positional sound?!<
!Normally, you hear it kind of left and behind you. My instinct that the sound is supposed to be telling me where to look was so strong that I kept turning away from enemies I knew were right in front of me. That’s so genius I almost feel it must have been an accident.!<
Ah, but here we have to get pedantic a little bit: producing an AGI through current known methods is intractable.
I didn’t quite understand this at first. I think I was going to say something about the paper leaving the method ambiguous, thus implicating all methods yet unknown, etc, whatever. But yeah, this divide between solvable and “unsolvable” shifts if we ever break NP-hard and have to define some new NP-super-hard category. This does feel like the piece I was missing. Or a piece, anyway.
e.g. humans don’t fit the definition either.
I did think about this, and the only reason I reject it is that “human-like or -level” matches our complexity by definition, and we already have a behavior set for a fairly large n. This doesn’t have to mean that we aren’t still below some curve, of course, but I do struggle to imagine how our own complexity wouldn’t still be too large to solve, AGI or not.
Anyway, the main reason I’m replying again at all is just to make sure I thanked you for getting back to me, haha. This was definitely helpful.
Hey! Just asking you because I’m not sure where else to direct this energy at the moment.
I spent a while trying to understand the argument this paper was making, and for the most part I think I’ve got it. But there’s a kind of obvious, knee-jerk rebuttal to throw at it, seen elsewhere under this post, even:
If producing an AGI is intractable, why does the human meat-brain exist?
Evolution “may be thought of” as a process that samples a distribution of situation-behaviors, though that distribution is entirely abstract. And the decision process for whether the “AI” it produces matches this distribution of successful behaviors is yada yada darwinism. The answer we care about, because this is the inspiration I imagine AI engineers took from evolution in the first place, is whether evolution can (not inevitably, just can) produce an AGI (us) in reasonable time (it did).
The question is, where does this line of thinking fail?
Going by the proof, it should either be:
- That evolution is an intractable method. 60 million years is a long time, but it still feels quite short for this answer.
- Something about it doesn’t fit within this computational paradigm. That is, I’m stretching the definition.
- The language “no better than chance” for option 2 is actually more significant than I’m thinking. Evolution is all chance. But is our existence really just extreme luck? I know that it is, but this answer is really unsatisfying.
I’m not sure how to formalize any of this, though.
The thought that we could “encode all of biological evolution into a program of at most size K” did made me laugh.
the people making these things will just innovate around whatever the regulations are
This is why I asked if you think laws are useless.
And yeah, casinos and whatever will skirt the laws (if they’re able), but the point of regulating a practice is to keep things from getting out of hand.
Predatory gambling games are basically just fancy theft. You create games that are unwinnable, and then you goad suckers into taking the bet. It’s regulations that keep a lot of them even marginally fair.
This is a behavioral problem,
And what of the business’ behavior? Should we not teach them to be better?
That’s where I’m coming from. Save the legislation for truly important things
I don’t disagree, but I feel you’re kind of assuming everyone is capable of rationally engaging with these stupid games. It’s the irrational ones I worry about. Loot boxes and gambling addicts, for instance.
That said, though, the validity of blaming companies for the bad decisions they make knowing they’ll catch so many fish in their net is all I’m really here for. I’ve no idea how I’d “regulate early access” or if that’s even worth doing.
Oh wow, I really riled you up.
the real problem is the idiots who are paying.
I mean, I think that this is contentious enough to be worth picking apart.
I can’t imagine calling someone an idiot unless I thought they kind of deserved what was coming to them. It’s this schadenfreude you seem to feel that I take issue with.
I’m especially curious about that one.
Oh, that would be this, actually:
demonstrates more contempt for one’s fellow man than decreeing that they shouldn’t even be allowed to make their own choices.
You are, for some reason, arguing against the concept of rules. I never asked you to do that.
And why should those things be stopped? See, unlike you, “I believe in freedom.” If people don’t like their company town, they shall simply move away~.
I said it is better if the government doesn’t verify all the code that makes it on the internet.
You also said this apropos of nothing. I didn’t say anything about vetting code. You think I care if Biden has read your commit messages.
And how ads on TV are sometimes so much louder than the show they’re cut between. And the glitches! Sometimes, you have to completely power cycle your phone to fix something simple. And how Facebook’s curated, algorithmic feed sends people down extremist pipelines, fueling things like public shootings and the January 2021 Capital riots. And how the continued atomization of society into smaller and smaller pieces (e.g. suburbia) has made people lonelier than they ever have been. And how the displacement of work onto capable machines never seems to yield benefits onto the people whose work is being displaced, only their bosses.
I guess if all you remember are Letterman’s fumbling grandpa jokes about what the Internet is, gosh dang, even useful for, I could see why you’d think nobody’s criticisms are real.
Oh, that’s right, this was 2014.
In this case, they’re referring to the P.T. video game. It was cool as shit, but good luck getting a copy to play. :p
There’s a line between a cup and an ocean. I don’t see what that has to do with anything.
I’m claiming that it’s possible for an artist to use ai in the production of real art.
As an artist can use a guitar instead of their own mouth. But can an artist’s art be the guitar playing itself… hm. A book in a library is art. But can choosing a book from a library be art? Ah, but what if it takes a long time. Wow, philosophy is interesting.
The argument here hinges on the definitions of inherently vague words. “Hm, you say a chair must have at least three legs and a seat, but this rock is a place people sit. Hm, what if the rock was sculpted, does it count then? Yes, yes, I am very smart”—This is boring and I don’t care.
If the script for your movie wasn’t written by people, then I don’t care about it. It’s trash. It’s garbage. I would rather watch one made by people who care. I want people to talk to me with their art. When an AI becomes sentient enough to intend to make something meaningful, then we can revisit.
Oh right, but you mean the technical caveat for the use of AI tools.
Joel Haver uses an AI filter to do his rotoscoping. I like Joel Haver just fine.
The mere presence of an AI filter in his work is not what I consider artful, though.
Dude, I don’t care how many iterations a person goes through. I care that the piece contains a bit of their soul.
The argument you’re making fails to appreciate why two images, one made by gen AI, one by a real human person, both exactly identical pixel by pixel, could possibly be valued differently.
If you want to know why I seem to lack respect for the prompt artist who spends a 3-month chunk of their life toiling over their latest piece, making everything just so, because some part of them desperately needs to say something and this piece is the only way they can—I would ask you to show me one.
But further, the prompt artist doesn’t even make it. Even if they did spend the time, credit goes to the AI. The prompt artist is welcome to claim their prompt, I guess, but I don’t often see them sharing those around. Would that even be entertaining?
But providing a description to an “actual artist” is an artistic skill.
Ohhh, so this is why people tag their images by popular art commisioners. Here’s another one asked for by XanthemG—you know he asks for good stuff.
Wait, that doesn’t happen.
why you believe ai inherently makes something not art.
For the same reason ChatGPT can’t make you any less lonely.
If we count other people playing the game in front of me, I swear I’ve “played” this remake like 7, 8, 9 times through.