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.
That’s because you are weak. I bet you have a peanut allergy too.
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.
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 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?
It’s because a huge amount of business is centered around made up things for going to work.
Things you need to work in an office: suits, dry cleaning for the suits, dress shoes, a car (because public transportation is woefully inadequate for this reason), gas for the car, maintenance for the car, lunch, daycare, a dog walker, you have less time so you are more likely to eat out for dinner, also more likely to hire maids, you are stuck in a commute and radio is awful, so a music subscription, maybe a new phone, and might have to go out for drinks with the coworkers on the way home.
Staying at home, and much of the country on highly limited income, taught us how much we spend on the “privilege” of work. Everyone is still shocked at the emotional and opportunity cost work had, we’re just starting to realize that most of what it sold to us either isn’t real or isn’t needed.
If people don’t go back to work a sea of businesses will fail.
It is!
Most companies make BS solutions for fake problems. Not going to the office exposes a large chunk of fake needs.
Do families really need two cars? If you aren’t commuting every day, probably not.
Having more free time means people are more likely to cook and clean for themselves. Can’t make money off of that.
How many suits do you need to own? None! You only owned them because you are supposed to wear them in the office.
Dry cleaners? No longer a bill.
Gas? When you aren’t sitting in your cities parking lot of a freeway isn’t bought as often.
Speaking of parking lots, you aren’t paying for parking anymore.
Daycare and dog walkers aren’t needed anymore.
Going up work is expensive and companies want us addicted to these fake expenses.
It’s always good to mention “famously good” games. I played dark souls a year ago for the first time because of a post like this I saw.
To people who haven’t played Undertale; you’ll probably like it, it’s very good.
I want to pick it up, but I’m likely going to wait about a year. I’m sure there will be some sort of DLC related to character options and some major patches, so I’ll just wait until it’s $30 with the DLCs and play it then. I don’t have the time or temperament to replay RPGs, so I’ll save money and play the whole thing.
Roguelikes tend to be very good for this. They let you play and have complexity from emergent situations, not an overload of controls.
It’s old, but if you haven’t played “enter the gungeon” pick it up! Hades is fun and well written, there is a lot of text but it doesn’t feel like an interruption. Honestly the other games from that studio fit that description.
If you like puzzle games, everything by zachtronics is both great and very difficult. Magnum Opus is probably the best entry point, but space chem is what I started with and it’s still my true love.
I expected to hate the souls games, mostly because of how irritating the fans are (“it’s so hard!”, “Get good!”, ect) but they are great games. They aren’t nearly as hard as everyone makes them out to be. I’m 40, so I started playing games when dying meant losing all progress, so I see the death penalty of dark souls as normal. What no one talks about is how changing your weapon changes the game drastically, to the point that stats on weapons don’t really matter, it’s all move sets.
I also love Factorio, dwarf fortress and EUIV, but I think that’s a personal failing I have to work on.
The issue I have is most games aren’t fun to me.
A two hour long tutorial where every 20 seconds I have to deal with text preventing me from playing? Never opening the game again.
Controls that are so complicated I need that two hour tutorial? Pass.
A decent story interrupted with 40 hours of pointless side quests? I don’t have time for that.
A crafting system? Never fun.
I don’t mind complicated games, I don’t mind long games, I just want to be able to play the game. Compare Elden Ring to Jedi survivor. Elden Ring let’s you play the game with minimal tutorials, Jedi survivor has pop-ups and walks you through things hours into the game. Just let me play and I’ll play.
I’m confused by your question.
Is your objection cliffhanger endings? Those are more common in American media. Or is it lack of plot progression, which is common across all media? Even shows famous for moving the plot forward never stray too far from the start.
Fear and hunger.
It has enemies that are tougher than they should be. You are just a small part of the story. It’s pretty good.
I hated metal minis.
Granted my painting has had two phases, when I was a teen and played Warhammer and metal minis were the bane of my existence (falling over, and difficult to paint). Now that I’m older and all the minis I have are from reaper Kickstarters I can’t see willingly going back to metal.
Is there any reason you want to stick with metal minis? To my eye plastic and resin minis look nicer and feel more dynamic. I ask because I’m genuinely curious.
Benedictine eggs?
Searching just comes up with eggs Benedict.
I was surprised by how good season one was. Season two was great fun. I hated season three.
I feel they tried too hard to make serious points and failed at telling good stories. They wanted to have big thoughts, but just weren’t entertaining.
He said it was blown out of proportion, don’t put words in his mouth.
There were literal TV spots on whether or not planes will drop from the sky. The threat was overblown.
Lots of people did tons of work to keep systems online, but even if they all failed the end results wouldn’t have been that bad. Money would be lost, but loss of life due to Y2K would be exceedingly rare.