• 0 Posts
  • 75 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 15th, 2023

help-circle

  • Please be careful, while the thrust of your statement is correct (not a substitute for a real professional, it can give dangerously bad advise on some occasions and there’s no way besides personal knowledge and expertise to distinguish when it messes up besides hard study and real research), the meme that LLMs are glorified autocomplete is factually incorrect. Don’t be like the D.A.R.E. program and try to scare people away from things with bad facts and lies.

    It is disingenuous to say that because the AI system that trains the AI system that becomes the LLM uses “next word prediction” as its success metric, that the LLM itself is nothing but autocomplete. Here’s an example of a next word predictor: a fully fledged intelligent human being who is asked to predict the next word of a sentence. And I’m not saying that an LLM is that, or equivalent, or even close, just that being a next word predictor doesn’t rule that out, and claiming or implying so is simply wrong.

    True, use of LLMs is not guaranteed to be correct, and in areas where correctness really matters and you lack expertise to check it, you really should not use an LLM. But let’s not lie to make it sound dumber than it is. It’s plenty dumb enough already.




  • I don’t think Blackmist has a hot take here. The Ubisoft formula is: navigate to a tower. Tower gives you a checklist of things to do. You do the things, then look for a new tower.

    Breath of the Wild is different. Yes, you start by navigating to a tower, but then… no checklist is given. You look around, you explore, you find things to do. Maybe you find everything, maybe you miss things, maybe you miss everything. You can always come back and explore more later… and when you’ve done everything, you can’t really be CERTAIN that you got it all. The lack of a checklist dramatically shifts the gameplay from doing a list of events, with little difference from selecting them from a menu, to actually having to explore the world and look around.

    To call it the Ubisoft formula is to vastly misunderstand what the Ubisoft formula is. The formula is a list of things to do. BotW does not have that. Not even slightly. The towers are just something to aim for to get you started, and a place you can use your eyes to look around from, also to get you started.



  • That was actually the original inspiration for the character. To take the nazi ideal being, and say, “what if he existed, but was nothing like you.”

    All those “subversions” of Superman out there, including Snyder’s interpretation? Those aren’t subversions of Superman as much as simply going back to the original concept that Superman’s creators were deliberately trying to subvert. “What if the ultimate powerful person DIDN’T abuse his power, and was actually a good person?”





  • In D&D, the standard assumption is that elves mature just as fast as humans, but they are culturally treated as children until around hundred or just a bit higher. But I’ve started developing a campaign setting where elves really are the equivalent of kids until that age, and all the implications of that. One of which is that, if humans attended school alongside elven kids, they’re going to lose their reputation of mystique and wisdom— they’re going to be viewed as kinda slow and dimwitted, as the humans graduate through the grades and the elevens get held back a decade or so.



  • Beavers fuck up habitats and ecosystems about as much as humans used to before factories, which accelerated what we could fuck up. Beavers wreck shit up. Sometimes elephants do too, for that matter. And let’s be clear, the modifications these animals cause can have overall eventual benefits for an ecosystem, but they change the ecosystem extensively over a huge area, and any benefits you can ascribe to their actions could as easily be applied to human ecosystem modification too. “Oh yeah, the forest is completely gone, but now there’s new homes for different kinds of creatures that couldn’t live there before.” This sentence applies 100% to elephants, beavers, and yes, humans.

    Some animals change their environment. We are one of them. Our tool use and brains allow us to do so on a pretty wide scale, but the destruction the elephants caused was pretty darn huge too. Humans also have the capacity to do with intention towards actively helping an ecosystem… elephants don’t have the ability for that kind of intentionality.

    Of course, humans are also fully capable of acting without that intentionality too. It is pure coincidence that new ecosystems appear in the wake of elephant or beaver devastation— they weren’t actively trying to help other animals, they just wanted what they wanted. Our destruction can also have unintentional new ecosystems arise in our wake— the problem is that often we don’t LIKE the new ecosystems (bacteria and viruses, for example), and we often DO LIKE the stuff we destroyed.

    But it’s not really different from what animals do. Because we aren’t separate from nature, we are nature. If we are bad, nature is bad. If nature is good, we are good. But this kind of binary thinking is too simplistic, life is more complicated than that, and we as humans have an ability to make value judgements and moral distinctions in a way that most animals cannot. We shouldn’t use that power in such a reductive way.




  • I remember roughly a decade ago I worked out that a gold was equivalent in purchasing power to somewhere on the order of $100, and $100 was a nice round number that’s easy to use to get a ballpark feel for what something is worth, so I pretty much always use that. I’m guessing inflation and/or doomsday preppers (or political culture) has significantly raised the price of gold since then. Inflation too.