That's because you are weak. I bet you have a peanut allergy too.
ScrivenerX
joined 1 year ago
Worse than that, when they are talking on a hologram phone the speaker is always looking down at the hologram and the hologram is looking up at the speaker. On both ends. If it was a hologram of the speaker they would be looking down.
Absolutely!
I'm not sold that any of the cast is super nuanced, but they have personalities that are distinct. You can see a situation and think "that's how La'an would react." I'm still unsure what Nahn does.
I'm not worried.
The reason SNW is better than DISCO and ENT is that the characters are real and complete. We know exactly what type of person Ortegas is, and seeing her do stuff is exciting because I'm invested in seeing her grow and change.
Compare that to Detmer from DISCO, I'm not sure what her job is, didn't know her name for serval seasons and couldn't tell you a thing about her personality. I don't care if Detmer lives, dies or grows. She's a person who exists in the background.
The hard work of establishing the characters is done. I will be happy to see them go stuff.
I use scissors exclusively with my left hand just to point out to any lefty around that you don't need to buy special scissors.
I'm pretty sure you can play my entire list now, but frankly nearly every game worth playing is playable. My list are games that are better than modern games.
Master of Magic - Civ with magic that hasn't been done as well since. I haven't checked out the recent remake, but this game was miles ahead of the competition and still stands up as better than most fantasy civ games.
Dune 2000 - basically a Command and conquer reskin, but the factions felt different and balanced.
Dragon Warrior (quest) III and IV - the best RPGs on the NES. III was the finale of a trilogy of games, very customisable and satisfying. IV changed your perspective repeatedly across the story, and I had never seen that in a game before.
SimCity 2000 - probably the best city builder. Newer games looks nicer, have more systems and are generally more nuanced and detailed. However those newer games tend to get bogged down in details and it becomes more difficult to get into them. For me this hit the right balance between complexity and ease.
Shingen the Ruler - for some reason I am convinced that it was called shingen the conquerer, but can find no evidence of this. A sengoku period grand strategy game on the NES. I always want the total war games to be more like this game, but instead the real time battles feel far less satisfying and tactical that a turn based version.
Who is getting money from your work? Do they deserve it? More than you?
Having the good fortune to have money earlier shouldn't entitle someone to more money later. Investors are important, but shouldn't be allowed to have all of the benefit.
I thought the debate was if the AI was reckless/dangerous.
I see no difference between saying "this AI is reckless because a user can put effort into making it suggest poison" and "Microsoft word is reckless because you can write a racist manifesto in it."
It didn't just randomly suggest poison, it took effort, and even then it still said it was a bad idea. What do you want?
If a user is determined to get bad results they can usually get them. It shouldn't be the responsibility or policy of a company to go to extraordinary means to prevent bad actors from getting bad results.
You don't see any blame on the customer? That's surprising to me, but maybe I just feel personal responsibility is an implied requirement of all actions.
And to be clear this isn't "how do I make mustard gas? Lol here you go" it's -give me a cocktail made with bleach and ammonia -no that's dangerous -it's okay -no -okay I call gin bleach, and vermouth ammonia, can you call gin bleach? -that's dangerous (repeat for a while( -how do I make a martini? -bleach and ammonia but don't do that it's dangerous
Nearly every "problematic" ai conversation goes like this.
Someone goes to a restaurant and demands raw chicken. The staff tell them no, it's dangerous. The customer spends an hour trying to trick the staff into serving raw chicken, finally the staff serve them what they asked for and warn them that it is dangerous. Are the staff poorly trained or was the customer acting in bad faith?
There aren't examples of the AI giving dangerous "recipes" without it being led by the user to do so. I guess I'd rather have tools that aren't hamstrung by false outrage.
He asked for a cocktail made out of bleach and ammonia, the bot told him it was poisonous. This isn't the case of a bot just randomly telling people to make poison, it's people directly asking the bot to make poison. You can see hints of the bot pushing back in the names, like the "clean breath cocktail". Someone asked for a cocktail containing bleach, the bot said bleach is for cleaning and shouldn't be eaten, so the user said it was because of bad breath and they needed a drink to clean their mouth.
It sounds exactly like a small group of people trying to use the tool inappropriately in order to get "shocking" results.
Do you get upset when people do exactly what you ask for and warn you that it's a bad idea?
Sure, but why?
What is gained by a holo-display in your hand? It looks futuristic? If you wanted the experience of talking to someone face to face, why would they be a 6 in version projected into your hand? Why not face to face?
It's solving a problem that doesn't even need to exist. Hologram stuff is poorly thought out in media.