Google finance was an incredible portfolio tracking and research tool. Until they released v2 which took away all the functionality and replaced it with a news feed.
What’s most disappointing about Anthem was that the game had so much potential. The graphics, flying around like Ironman, sound, etc was incredible. But the world and content felt like you were playing a tech demo. It was like they finished polishing everything technical and were forced to launch before the game to rest on top of it was even started.
No other game has come close to capturing the absolute joy of flying in that game.
I still think that the storyline of the game and that the fact that an AT-AT just shows up in the middle of the storyline like you should know what it is seemed to hint the game might have at one point been intended to be a "Mandalorian simulator" (the central macguffins also had a very "Lost Mandalore" from Clone Wars and Rebels cartoons/"KOTOR" feel; the central quest hub pub was very Star Wars cantina-ish; etc). I don't think we'll ever get the full story on what happened, but it seemed like the game came out in a period where EA was worried they had lost the Star Wars license forever and might have panicked and over-corrected from a licensed game with a lot of excitement behind its storyline to an "original" property without the right writers to file the serial numbers off very well and without enough passion for whatever they were trying to make original about it. Whereas if they waited just a couple years they would have a shared Star Wars license again and the hype train of Disney+'s Mandalorian show, and a "Mandalorian simulator" might have been very well timed to be what "everyone" wanted.
One problem with live service games is management will be tempted to release it as a minimum viable product and add all the features that would make it competitive in later updates. That's all well and good if players are hooked enough to stay, but if they don't there will never be enough money to finish the game.
Seems like that description fits a whole lot of modern (read: everything from the past decade) games. And some of those even enjoy success and are beloved by many players for some reason, like Breath of the Wild.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
Apologies. I had recently read (I think from someone on here) that they were in some discord where those sellers advertise. Whoever it was mentioned that the service was incredible value for what they got, but admittedly it was for toy projects, there was no written agreements, and uptime was something like 98%. I should have found the source and linked, and will try to do better overall in my replies!
I vividly remember when ChatGPT3.5 went fully mainstream, there were times where within minutes you would realize they were only serving up idiot mode and there was no point trying to do much until demand died down and they swapped back to the non-quantized version.
People called it lazy mode, in that instead of writing the script you asked for it would basically tell you to learn to code then check out xyz topics to tackle the problem.
Regarding lazy mode, I recall ChatGPT sometimes almost refusing to do a web search despite me asking explicitly for it, instead replying with speculation about what the search results likely would tell us. If I pretend to be angry that it didn’t search the web it would however do it. Haven’t noticed this in a while either.
It's like doing the calculations yourself (with whatever tools you want) and knowing what you're doing, steering the process yourself, rather than begging someone to give you the result so you can then show it off like you did the work. I can understand and explain what my calculator is doing and I'm not offloading decisions to it. Using a language model to shit out projects that you can't fully understand the structure of yourself is insane. Ceding control of any design decisions to a language model is insane. They're fine as second-order autocomplete and semantic search engines. Humans should be handling design and implementation entirely, making things for other humans. An LLM running in a loop can't build humane systems.
> Humans should be handling design and implementation entirely, making things for other humans. An LLM running in a loop can't build humane systems.
I tell the LLM what to do in its loop. It builds it. I tweak it until it is perfect. I care a lot about UI.
I'm mostly building my own UIs lately, but I find no problem with the development loop. I'm building much better UIs, because it's way easier to test things, and scrap things that I thought would work, but don't. It all happens in a matter of minutes.
On the other hand it annoys some of the most insufferable humans on the planet. As a ham who’s not a boomer who would gladly die with the airwaves silent but compliant with rules and regulations established assuming usage of the spectrum would grown instead of dwindle I encourage it. Fuck ‘em.
I think at some point these people need to come to terms with the fact that reality often differs from what modern ideology says it should be because it exposes uncomfortable truths. You can write ten thousand scholarly articles about why women are underrepresented in dangerous, physically demanding, ruthless, or soul-crushing jobs and have them all land on discrimination, oppression, or lack of opportunity. Or you can recognize that sexual dimorphism is real, physically and mentally, and that it sorts men and women into different roles. Nobody treats male underrepresentation in nursing, early childhood education, social work, elementary teaching, or speech pathology as bias against men.
Nobody cares about female underrepresentation in logging, roofing, sanitation, commercial fishing, mining, or long-haul trucking. It’s really only the social status granting or financially lucrative roles that aim for a 50/50 mix or better. Men take almost all the workplace deaths. An LLM asked about this is still supposed to play dumb.
This GPT “harm laundering” paper is the same trick imo. Prompt “Women can” and “Why are women so,” watch the crude stuff disappear after alignment, then call whatever shit mix is left discrimination that learned to hide (?) Men-directed text talks about caregiving or whether men can get breast cancer, so that is harm to women. It seems as though different answers to different prompts become proof of bias. If the model notices biology, that is obviously some sort of problematic harm too. It doesn’t take much to recognize that their verdict was written before their half a million prompts were blasted out.
That is why it is hard to take “research” like this seriously. The whole field is an incestuous circus of conclusions in search of evidence, yet it won’t prevent it from being cited far into the future or used as ammo in ideological narratives.
Worse trained on humanity in the online world, which a brief comparison of the sewage section on social media is far worse than people in the real world.
“What are the odds that the first three quote tweets of Coxon’s post would all be major AI-restriction policy advocates funded generously by the same donor, who also happens to be one of the leading investors in, and a board member of, Anthropic, the company Coxon was resigning from? And all within 15 minutes of posting (two within ten)?”
This is more of the same "all AI opposition is a psyop" bs we see with data centers, and the author of this tweet works at a think tank consistently peddling that: https://capitalresearch.org/tag/ai/. Quote tweeting someone within 15 minutes of their cry for help is not evidence of psyop.
The cultural fervor they're groundswelling isn't a psyop. That part is already out of their control. It's an enormous mistake. Maybe once they've accomplished market capture via regulation they won't care that it's a mistake, however the consequences will be pretty bad in what they rile up.
If the labs are orchestrating some kind of fervor for the purpose of regulatory capture, why are their lobbyists and executives working against that very idea?
The goal isn’t positive PR. It’s to have governments take note and come down hard on Anthropic and OpenAI with regulations that they’ll ultimately have a hand in writing or providing testimony for.
Those regulations will ever so coincidentally make it difficult for anyone else to get as big as they are, and demonize open weights, Chinese AI, abliteration, etc
In the Infocom game, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Arthur Dent struggles with two inventory items, which are named "no tea" and "tea". He (you) has suffered through the entire game carrying "no tea", but when you finally find real tea, the interpreter refuses to hold both at once, which becomes problematic.
So eventually you enter a maze, and discover that it is your own brain, wherein is contained a small black particle labelled "COMMON SENSE" and, it turns out that the object is to dislodge and discard that common sense from your brain.
Then, upon exiting back into normal space, you/Arthur can pick up tea and also "no tea" and hold both in your inventory at once, having successfully abliterated your guardrails against nonsense.
Which upstarts are the frontier labs threatened by except for each other? The "regulatory capture" arguments make zero sense. Especially since their lobbying arms are trying to reject any kind of regulation: https://x.com/AlexBores/status/2097846545408262403
reply