• 0 Posts
  • 53 Comments
Joined 2Y ago
cake
Cake day: Jul 01, 2023

help-circle
rss

You realize that costing more does satiate the greed a little bit, right?

Like, yeah, we all know that line-goes-up capitalism isn’t sustainable, but there are still other reasons call of duty has loot boxes and battle passes now.


We’re still talking about ~3 mil to ~150 mil. If the software dev costs for Mario 64 were closer to ~1.5 mil, what does that have to do with the argument being made?


You know, maybe one day I’ll do it again. The only people I would have play Drakengard are those with extreme patience, and unfortunately, I’m one of those people.

It does have a really good story.


Nooo, wait who actually plays Drakengard? I love that game to bits, but I would never tell someone to play it. Was I just bad? That game is truly awful, haha.


Fuck I miss SSX. I need to make sure I have a good one in my rom folder.


Dating sims are absolutely played by heterosexual boys. Some of the weirdest, red-pill, alpha-male shit I’ve seen is from dating sims.

But yeah, usually on PC, I would think.


He is the richest person on the planet and currently dicking around in the US government’s department of the treasury as an unelected, regular citizen with no repercussions or consequences.

We are long past the man being a nobody.

Also, his gaming candle is stupid and he deserves the mockery.


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.


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.


They did, but I don’t think they still have them.

Pepe is now (or again) a beloved element of Twitch chat, and the OK symbol… I dunno, that was eight years ago. I just don’t hear anybody talking about it, unless it’s to half remember that it’s bad now or something.


Oh hell yeah. The perfect system for Yamaoka’s industrial scrape music.

Let me know how it goes. I’ve been real excited to see people experience this for the first time, haha.


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.!<


SH2 remake is sooo good. I’m in disbelief, honestly—and I’m still not convinced Konami will take Silent Hill f seriously enough. God willing.

But yes, if you’re interested, play SH2 remake.



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.


but there’s no reason to think we can’t achieve it

They provide a reason.

Just because you create a model and prove something in it, doesn’t mean it has any relationship to the real world.

What are we science deniers now?




I would if it had any lasting power. I mean, can’t they just push out another eula update 6 months from now when this change is no longer useful to them?

Fuck arbitration, of course, I’m just not expecting this to really mean anything.


People should be allowed to smoke and gamble, too.
I still don’t think it’s good that they do that, though.

One of the aims of Stop Killing Games, as far as I’m aware, is the preservation of history, which seems like a very odd thing to be indignant about.


This comment reminds me of when Bitcoin became the world’s dominant currency.


Do you mean the voice of Mario…?

I do not want an AI voice to puppet his corpse for the next 150 years.


Nooooo-ho-ho-ho, no it does not. You can justify a lot of evil shit with that line of thinking.


Nobody’s safety is at risk here

Correct. Very astute.

but the solution is simple: don’t pay for it.

Sure. But of course, the point of doing that is to suggest to companies that this is naughty behavior. This is naughty behavior, isn’t it?


This is kind of off topic from “people should stop pre ordering video games”, though.

It is. I just pegged them as libertarians, and I was right.

If I’m being honest, I thought they would have perceived the bait and pretended to care about public health, but alas.


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.


A plastic casing over a table saw “limits what choices a person can make.” This is a very anti-covid-vaccine argument you’re making.

But that’s fine. I suppose being victim to an unregulated casino means you deserve to rot in Rancho Charleston or whatever.


Wow. I wasn’t expecting so much contempt for your fellow man.


And any consumers who, in such a situation, do not say no to a bad deal have nobody to blame but themselves.

Do you suppose that choosing not to wear a seatbelt, a very bad deal, should be left entirely up to individuals, um, “stupid” enough to take it?


Is it your view then that all laws are useless?

Or just pay the fines as a cost of doing business.

What if the fine was… one billion dollars.


Hit them where it counts: in the player count.

Regulations also hurt them.


The trailer certainly failed at making his apparition exciting in any case.

I… completely disagree, but you know, whatever.


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.


Oh, I understand. So, it was advertisers who fueled the 2021 capital riots.

What if that authority only disallowed bad things like murder and insider trading. Hm. Yeah, that doesn’t really feel like North Korea at all.



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.


Let’s imagine that there are 16 good things about computers, and 3 bad ones.

I don’t like the bad ones.

people talked so much shit on them.

So, what shit were these morons saying then, hm?