Waited all year until it was on sale as I thought it might not be my cup of tea, tried not to let my prejudice get the better of me but felt it was such a drag I had to put it down.
It was recommended to me as I like Zelda but it couldn't be further from the things I like about it: innovation, fluid gameplay, freedom, puzzles, multiple ways to tackle enemies.
I don't think it's the difficulty as I play lots of roguelike and bullet hell games. My main gripe is the clunkiness of the combat to the point it's unfair. Like you don't really stand a chance through reactions alone, you have to learn the patterns and hitboxes of enemies so that you know in advance when to react.
Also I kept hearing how good the graphics are but I think they're kinda average although the actual art style is quite nice.
Any suggestions on how I might enjoy it would be much appreciated as I haven't got very far.
True, but if I'm spending thousands on a machine, I tend to want to be able to do other things on it so unfortunately Windows usually enters the equation.
Will consider a dedicated SteamOS box when I next refresh.
Lol I think you severely overestimate the amount of time we have to change things.
You want to educate the populace that they should not buy a pet when their current one dies? So, in an optimistic scenario, in 10 years time you think what 10% of the entire population might have listened to you? Meanwhile we'll be well on our way to the planet becoming unlivable.
I don't have pets or kids and I rarely drive or fly.
I do as best I can to minimise my "carbon footprint" despite knowing it's a concept dreamed up by BP's PR team to shift the attention away from the industries responsible.
I used to try to suggest others do similar but at this point it's likely too late. And you propose I go around telling my friends and family to take their pets out back as a starting point? I'd laugh if the naivety wasn't so tragic.
Ok but most of my games use Quick Resume so I am playing in under 15 seconds. To be honest the Switch has taken the crown for picking up where you left off since 2017.
I've used Moonlight but prefer not to stream really. Would be interested in how the latency is these days.
In the past I'd have said PC all the way but these days I'm glad both options exist. Biggest draw to the PC for me is mods. Would be tempted to make a dedicated SteamOS box next gen.
Having been predominantly a PC gamer for 30 years... PCs more hassle to update and maintain. When I finish work I want to sit on my sofa and play with as little inconvenience as possible.
Consoles fit nicely in a living room and are better for local multiplayer. This generation they were also cheaper than buying the equivalent PC hardware at launch.
Possible, yes. It's also entirely possible there's interactions we are yet to discover.
I wouldn't claim it's unknowable. Just that there's little evidence so far to suggest any form of sentience could arise from current machine learning models.
That hypothesis is not verifiable at present as we don't know the ins and outs of how consciousness arises.
Then it would logically follow that all the other functions of a human brain are similarly "possible" if we train it right and add enough computing power and memory. Without ever knowing the secrets of the human brain. I'd expect the truth somewhere in the middle of those two perspectives.
Lots of things are possible, we use the scientific method to test them not speculative logical arguments.
Functions of the brain
These would need to be defined.
But that means it should also be reproducible by similar means.
Can't be sure of this... For example, what if quantum interactions are involved in brain activity? How does the grey matter in the brain affect the functioning of neurons? How do the heart/gut affect things? Do cells which aren't neurons provide any input? Does some aspect of consciousness arise from the very material the brain is made of?
As far as I know all the above are open questions and I'm sure there are many more. But the point is we can't suggest there is actually rudimentary consciousness in neural networks until we have pinned it down in living things first.
Yeah that's what I'm hopeful for, was going to suggest the same.
Only reason I bought a Series X was because it was cheaper and nicer form factor than upgrading my PC. Tbh ended up liking it more than I expected due to Game Pass, Microsoft Rewards and QoL stuff like Quick Resume but will likely just go back to PC if these rumours turn out to be true.
For most, I think It's due to the rumours that Microsoft could pull out of making Xbox hardware altogether, not because people don't want others enjoying Xbox games.
That would enable Sony to form a monopoly over the high-end console market, which is never good for consumers. Xbox users also have concerns surrounding how they would be able to access their 20+ years of games, friends, achievements, clips, etc. if that were to happen.
You say maybe there's not much to understand about the brain but I entirely disagree, it's the most complex object in the known universe and we haven't discovered all of it's secrets yet.
Generating pictures from a vast database of training material is nowhere near comparable.
It's fun to think about but we don't understand the brain enough to extrapolate AIs in their current form to sentience. Even your mention of "parts" of the mind are not clearly defined.
There are so many potential hidden variables. Sometimes I think people need reminding that the brain is the most complex thing in the universe, we don't full understand it yet and neural networks are just loosely based on the structure of neurons, not an exact replica.
I'd appreciate it if you could share evidence to support these claims.
Which claims? I am making no claims other than AIs in their current form do not fully represent what most humans would define as a conscious experience of the world. They therefore do not understand concepts as most humans know it. My evidence for this is that the hard problem of consciousness is yet to be solved and we don't fully understand how living brains work. As stated previously, the burden of proof for anything further lies with yourself.
What definitions? Cite them.
The definition of how a conscious being experiences the world. Defining it is half the problem. There are no useful citations as you have entered the realm of philosophical debate which has no real answers, just debates about definitions.
Explain how I’m oversimplifying, don’t simply state that I’m doing it.
I already provided a precise example of your reductionist arguing methods. Are you even taking the time to read my responses or just arguing for the sake of not being wrong?
I've already provided my proof. I apologize if I missed it, but I haven't seen your proof yet. Show me the default scientific position.
You haven't provided any proof whatsoever because you can't. To convince me you'd have to provide compelling evidence of how consciousness arises within the mind and then demonstrate how that can be replicated in a neural network. If that existed it would be all over the news and the Nobel Prizes would be in the post.
If you have evidence to support your claims, I'd be happy to consider it. However, without any, I won't be returning to this discussion.
Again, I don't need evidence for my standpoint as it's the default scientific position and the burden of proof lies with yourself. It's like asking me to prove you didn't see a unicorn.
Have you ever considered you might be, you know, wrong?
No sorry you're definitely 100% correct. You hold a well-reasoned, evidenced scientific opinion, you just haven't found the right node yet.
Perhaps a mental gymnastics node would suit sir better? One without all us laymen and tech bros clogging up the place.
Or you could create your own instance populated by AIs where you can debate them about the origins of consciousness until androids dream of electric sheep?
Bringing physically or mentally disabled people into the discussion does not add or prove anything, I think we both agree they understand and experience the world as they are conscious beings.
This has, as usual, descended into a discussion about the word "understanding". We differ in that I actually do consider it mystical to some degree as it is poorly defined and implies some aspect of consciousness to myself and others.
Your definitions are remarkably vague and lack clear boundaries.
That's language for you I'm afraid, it's a tool to convey concepts that can easily be misinterpreted. As I've previously alluded to, this comes down to definitions and you can't really argue your point without reducing complexity of how living things experience the world.
I'm not overstating anything (it's difficult to overstate the complexities of the mind), but I can see how it could be interpreted that way given your propensity to oversimplify all aspects of a conscious being.
This is an argument from incredulity, repeatedly asserting that neural networks lack "true" understanding without any explanation or evidence. This is a personal belief disguised as a logical or philosophical claim. If a neural network can reliably connect images with their meanings, even for unseen examples, it demonstrates a level of understanding on its own terms.
The burden of proof here rests on your shoulders and my view is certainly not just a personal belief, it's the default scientific position. Repeating my point about the definition of "understanding" which you failed to counter does not make it an agrument from incredulity.
If you offer your definition of the word "understanding" I might be able to agree as long as it does not evoke human or even animal conscious experience. There's literally no evidence for that and as we know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I agree, there is no formal definition for AGI so a bit silly to discuss that really. Funnily enough I inadvertantly wrote the nearest neighbour algorithm to model swarming behavour back when I was an undergrad and didn't even consider it rudimentary AI.
Can I ask what your take on the possibility of neural networks understanding what they are doing is?
Redacted @ Redacted @lemmy.world Posts 1Comments 220Joined 2 yr. ago
Cheers, probably just not for me then.