TwilightVulpine @ TwilightVulpine @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

897

Joined

2 yr. ago

There are some fundamental obstacles to that. I don't want, for instance, that a game AI does that which I tell it to do. I want to be surprised and presented with situations I haven't considered. However, LLMs replicate language and symbol patterns according to how they are trained. Their tendency is to be cliche, because cliche is the most expected outcome of any narrative situation.

There is also the matter that ultimately LLMs do not have a real understanding and opinions about the world and themes. They can give us description of trees, diffusion models can get us a picture of a tree, but they don't know what a tree is. They don't have the experiential and emotional ability to make their own mind of what a tree is and represents, they can only use and remix our words. For them to say something unique about trees, they are basically randomly trying stuff until something sticks, without no real basis of their own. We do not have true generalized AI to have this level of understanding and introspection.

I suppose that sufficiently advanced and thorough modelling might give them the appearance of these qualities... but at that point, why not just have the developers write these worlds and characters? Sure that content is much more limited than the potentially infinite LLM responses, but as you wring eternal content from an LLM, most likely you are going to end up leaving the scope of any parameters back into cliches and nonsense.

To be fair though, that depends on the type of game we are talking about. I doubt that a LLM's driven Baldur's Gate would be anywhere as good as the real thing by a long margin. But I suppose it could work for a game like Animal Crossing, where we don't mind the little characters constantly rambling catchphrases and nonsense.

Good that some governments still enforce customer rights against the ever more prevalent attitude in gaming and tech of "you bought it but we still own it"

Twitter (desperately purporting to be Elon Musk's X)

Apparently it was released December 21th, but I cannot find a single thing whatsoever about how it played out. Which by itself doesn't make it seem very successful.

Gotta wonder how that affects older games that haven't been updated since....

This is something I used to be excited for but I only have been losing interest the more I hear about AI. What are the chances this will lead to moving character arcs or profound messages? The way LLMs are today, the best we can hope for is Radiant Quests Plus. Not sure a game driven by AIs rambling semi-coherently forever will be more entertaining than something written by humans with a clear vision.

They did try that Symbiogenesis NFT bulshit. Now I'm not even sure if anything came out of it. Apparently it was supposed to be released this December but I didn't hear a single thing about it.

This ain't Wikipedia. Nobody is just leaving their info and settling at that. Nobody is even trying to be objective (even if Wikipedia doesn't always manage it). Threads don't result in a single consensus reference page to be maintained indefinitely, but multiple discussions where everyone is making their opinions heard. As much as some opinions are highlighted over others, it's not collapsed into a final conclusion.

Be honest here. Look at Twitter and then look at Wikipedia. As far as similarity in function and behavior, which is Reddit/Lemmy more like? If anything, to me saying Lemmy is the same as Wikipedia is calling cereal, soup.

The difference between Reddit/Lemmy and Twitter is that it's based on subcommunities rather than personal feeds. Even then, Facebook has that too, in their groups.

It is social media. Some users just want to believe they are above that. It does get a rise out of them, because they refuse to believe it. It doesn't mean it's not correct, not only based on pedantic definitions but also how and why people use it.

Say, even in participating in this discussion, what is your goal here? It's not like this thread will ever serve as a reference material for the classification of websites. It's not even the main point of the thread (whether and how to join social media). Seems to me that you want to make your opinion known, and so do I. Whether or not you remember my username, this is social interaction. And by experience I can say the same sort of discussion happening here happens on Twitter/Mastodon near identically.

The difference is that when it comes to intellectual, creative and communication work, we aren't the coachmen and breeders, we are the horses. After horses were no longer needed, what happened to them was very different.

So? What I said is just as applicable either way. Funny how pissy people get when they run out of arguments. You sure didn't come across as a great philosophers even before you started hurling insults like an elementary grader.

But if I was interested on what you had to say before, now I sure don't.

You can resent advertising however much you want but you are getting this one backwards. Influencers can be anything from models, reviewers, comedians, actors, so forth. It's a catch-all term for internet performers. They often rely on brand deals because it's one of the few reliable ways to make money on the internet. But do you really think millions of people follow influencers for the sole purpose of getting advertised at? That doesn't make sense.

Part of the issue is that this rush to transition to AI is not done to increase quality of work, but to sav time and costs. If the point was to improve the treatment, keeping a human doctor plus AI might result in better outcomes. But AI or no AI, a for-profit medical system won't elliminate health inequalities.

It's also worth keeping in mind not all forms of work are actually enhanced by AI participation. Journalists aren't aided by language models that regularly hallucinate false informations.

Replaced implies some, likely many humans won't be able to compete and will be driven out of the field. Not by any other more skillful artist, but simply by AI output. Which is an inevitability. Some might say it's already happening.

It's not that far off, frankly. A lot of websites with user comment sections have a social aspect to them. But even if we discount those whose the primary focus is not that, and we take YouTube and IMDb out of it, Reddit and Lemmy lack the sort of stable end result that reference sites and wikis focus on, or the sort of separation between creators and audience that YouTube has (then again isn't Instagram like that too?). Even if we make a distinction here we are still left with a place whose content, curation and discussions are community driven. A subreddit or Lemmy community is nothing but that which the people who participate in it decide. Sounds like a social form of media if I ever seen one. An internet platform for public collective multidirectional communication.

Frankly, I think Reddit and Lemmy resist the classification as "social media" not because there aren't reasons to count them as that, but because the userbases in these sites see it as a dirty word and they like to believe they are above the unwashed, stupid, celebrity-worshipping masses.

They are not. We are not.

How much do we mock people commonly not reading articles and just commenting immediately in both these places? That shows link aggregation is not necessarily the main driving appeal of these places. Even for lurkers and outsiders, they often use Reddit to see what people are commenting, especially as far as advice and recommendations go. We are even in a community whose primary content are questions from other users for us to talk about our opinions and ourselves. How much more socially driven does it need to be for people to accept that it is social media?

Even if one argues it's different from Facebook because we don't use real names, Twitter also goes by pseudonyms and everybody considers that "social media".

C'mon...

If you wanna judge me for my comments you gotta do better than "As an artist I thought about it and decided X is an art and Y isn't" as if everyone should just take your opinions as fact without any reasons for it. You didn't give me anything to ponder any deeper about.

If it was all a joke, it wasn't all that funny either.

Arts and crafts is a whole another discussion, and some say this distinction is only made to demean artisans when compared to academic artists. Similarly, if photography is art, and physical expression such as dance is art, I don't see why modeling wouldn't be art.

Influencers aren't all Logan Paul either. Would someone who offers useful recommendations or makes good comedy skits deserve to die either? Seems extreme. This whole thread seems way too hateful of the idea.

You haven't heard of good writing and good artwork being replaced by AI?

Do you realize artistic photography uses models too? I mentioned it right below in this discussion.

Consider that maybe you associate modeling with advertisements because our society is more driven by marketing than culture.

Even doctors are liable to be replaced by AI. I don't know what counts as "something of value to society" to you, and frankly that's the sort of argument that is never worth having. But generally speaking, it doesn't get much more valuable for society than doctors.

I don't think the definition needs to be stretched very far. In any of such cases, the function is social, it is about connecting people and enabling them to communicate in a wider, multilateral fashion, online. However asocial we might convince ourselves of being, if we truly had no interest in it, we wouldn't even be discussing anything here.

Even lurkers, at the very least, place trust on a group to bring them matters which they are interested in, and if you consider it, this is the manner in which Reddit and forums are most similar to following influencers. The only difference is that it is a crowd-driven highlight, rather than an individual one, and even then people don't tend to follow just one single influencer.