This makes sense as a way to think about it. This game probably does shift the balance a little away from micro in various ways, for instance there’s some autoaim, and usually ways to cheese boss fights a little so you don’t have to do precise dodges

What should be noted is that Garriott can’t just make a game called Ultima, because EA will still own the trademark. For video games, copyright covers things like the source code and audiovisual elements, whereas the trademark is for things like the brand name, specific characters, things like that.

So, that’s confusing, what exactly can be done when you have a copyright but not the trademark? Are there any examples of that happening before? What could you do with this that could not be done with a spiritual successor sort of game?

What would be better ways of doing it?

I think there might also be fingerprinting techniques that do not rely on the browser, so it’s not conclusive. Not sure why people are being so negative, people trying to ban evade Reddit should be empowered to succeed imo, fuck Reddit

So this problem should be solvable with only changes to client code then?

Except that it’s been demonstrated multiple times that original training data can be extracted from a language model, so it is completely valid to talk about the model as a database, because the training data is stored within it.

It’s been demonstrated that some more prominent pieces of training data can be reproduced, the majority of it cannot. This shows that those particular pieces of data are represented in some form within the model, it does not show that the way it works is equivalent to database lookups. If I can write down the lyrics of a song from memory, it shows that those lyrics are encoded as data in some form in my brain, but that doesn’t mean it’s valid to talk about my brain as a literal database, especially not in the sense that the limitations in the capabilities of a database can be ascribed to me (or its strengths, I cannot remember the exact lyrics of most songs I’ve heard, even if I can remember some).

Hill Climbing Algorithm & Artificial Intelligence - Computerphile

This video literally starts out by describing evolution as a similar optimization algorithm. If you know the basic mechanism of evolution, does that mean you can use that to then say with certainty and specificity what biological life in its vast diversity of techniques is not capable of? The “underlying operating principles” of evolution don’t “understand” chemistry or deception, but they still produce organisms capable of photosynthesis and camouflage. It’s an algorithm that produces other algorithms, which is what puts those resulting algorithms in a different category of comprehensibility than fixed algorithms that were explicitly written by someone. We are very far from having a comprehensive understanding of biological systems, despite knowing how evolution works.

This is not a tool that can comprehend what it is doing, it can’t be self-aware. It can only process large amounts of input data and attempt to maximize for particular dimensions. This seems vague to humans because the amount of variables being handled at any given time is far more than a human mind can focus on, but that doesn’t make the optimization routine intelligent or conscious. It’s just doing a lot of number crunching really fast, optimizing for specific aspects as directed by its developers.

This is like saying evolution is only a simple mechanism taking in the world as data, which, yeah, obviously, but that property doesn’t carry forward to what it produces. The bigger problem here though is, again, concepts like comprehension, consciousness, and intelligence are not well defined in computational terms, and it is unclear what statements involving them mean in any practical sense. These sorts of claims are non-falsifiable and don’t make testable predictions about the boundaries of AI capability.

Language models are not databases and they are not markov bots (similar function but work directly using statistical word association maps). The big difference is that those things are algorithms someone wrote and can fully comprehend what they do, but machine learning models are large algorithms built by another algorithm processing training data. There is much more uncertainty about what is going on under the hood.

There is also great uncertainty about what concepts like understanding or thinking might mean in computer science terms. The main thing we can really know is that ultimately a human mind is a computer, which means that understanding and thinking have some yet unknown mathematical representation, and therefore a comparison can be made. We should eventually be able to quantify whether or to what extent a given algorithm thinks. But you said in another comment that you don’t believe minds can be represented mathematically; this should mean that such comparisons would be apples to oranges, but you’re making them anyway for some reason, and implying they have predictive power for the limitations of LLMs.

Certainly they do have limitations, at least individually and possibly as a technology. There are things given models are bad at, there are things they initially seem to be able to do well as humans but fail in different ways that suggest over-reliance on pattern matching. But these have been determined empirically through testing. The idea that they are “just statistical models” and this knowledge can be used to say what is impossible for them from philosophical first principles keeps getting repeated but has never worked in practice. The reality is that no one knows enough to say for sure where the line is.

History has shown that voting with your wallet is not a working substitute for consumer protections. Without those the conflict between consumers and scammers is very asymmetrical.

Um… but it is just a sophisticated statistical model…

The mistake has been thinking this implies LLMs can never do X task, and using it as a catch-all argument for any value of X, but it isn’t a good argument because it has been wrong for most of those.

At the bottom of the page it says

Sign up now

Stop Killing GamesA sister campaign of Stop Killing Games

I wonder if there’s some way to corroborate that or they made a statement somewhere

I don’t like the OP banner much but I do like this one. There’s something really compelling about the abstract take older image models had on video game environments.

I don’t get why that’s a policy, if they’re banning my account they should just tell me and give me a chance to appeal or just block it

It’s because they hope you won’t notice it happened so there will be less work for them dealing with your complaints or new accounts. Even for people who aren’t fully shadowbanned, when their comments are removed it’s done in a similar way to hide from them that it happened. Reddit is designed to make sure admins and mods are not accountable (to the users) for their actions, and silence anyone who objects.

Don’t know exactly how it compares but I’ve measured the electricity increase while running it, something you can run on one graphics card is around the same as a resource intensive video game.

I’m hearing the gravity gun noise in my head

That’s fair, but imo the point of content being posted on a site like Lemmy is so it can be meaningfully discussed and reacted to using text, and a video, especially a longer video, makes that harder in various ways than something which is itself text, so regardless of the journalistic legitimacy of video it doesn’t seem like a bad requirement that news be presented as text.

That community is on my block list for years so take this with a grain of salt since I know nothing about its current state, but video is a horrible format for news. It takes longer to skim, you can’t copy paste quotes or quickly confirm that something someone quotes or mentions is actually an accurate reflection of the video, there is less substance and what is there is likely to be more about evoking emotion than presenting information and ideas. Sometimes footage of an event is relevant, but usually that works way better embedded in the context of a text article. For a speech or interview, a transcript is more useful.

unless you’re ok with what you get out of today’s models on dedicated consumer GPUs

This is all I use, mostly for quickly putting together personal software and doing linux stuff, it doesn’t feel limiting and is already really powerful. A lot of the stuff those models struggle with can be overcome by giving better context and more specific instructions, and that can be automated, so they should become more useful as harness software advances, independently of advancements in the models themselves. Maybe I have a limited perspective because I just haven’t tried the frontier models, but developing a dependence on services run by malevolent companies that obviously intend to use that dependence as leverage is deeply unappealing, and I’m not sure what they could offer to make that seem worth it on top of what I can already do with my own computer.

Well yeah, although I would argue that the narrative of Idiocracy supports this idea

The premise in the intro sequence about genetics and intelligence is bogus, but anti-intellectualism is a huge problem and this movie called how bad it was going to get. Bad things happen when people don’t value science or rational thinking, even if that’s not the only source of problems.

The nice thing about rotary phones was, they didn’t have to be plugged into an electrical outlet, so they worked during a power outage