Yeah I noticed this when I was mucking about with emulators. Thought I was imagining things until I looked it up. As far as I remember it has better sound too, or maybe I'm remembering castlevania three.
I went to New York’s Museum of Holography in the 1980’s. It was on Mercer Street but it closed in the 90’s. I remember it was incredible, though, and I saw some techniques on display that I haven’t seen matched since.
There was one in London in Covent Garden market around the same era (perhaps a small chain, or perhaps just a similar name).
One image that I remember being particularly impressed by was a model of a radio telescope dish. You could look around the dish and see all the support gantry. The contrast between the smooth dish face and the structure on the other side made the 3D nature very dramatic.
On the counter they had a nice mirror illusion¹ of a floating "help" button - not a plate hologram but a really nice effect and you can still get these. They tend to be cheap plastic and dust and scratches affect them over time, but it's still a really nice effect if you've not seen it before.
It's funny how sci-fi has mulled over the exact scenario for decades, and even converged to an answer - but when reality came knocking and it was no longer a far off future world hypothetical, all of it was forgotten overnight.
The power of wishful thinking is too strong. "Today's AI can't be conscious because I don't want it to be."
Don't discount a lot of naked dualism in many people. Unfortunately it seems so here given the cagey answers or downright denials from many I get despite trying various wordings.
I think step one well before getting to the hard problem of sapience would be showing he had consistent desires and consistent understanding of the world, which would be easy for Data and very hard for even the fanciest current LLMs.
Yes and nowadays no one would even bother put in that much effort. They would have an AI generate the box art and the jokes. The jokes wouldn't even be funny, but no one would care because "human jokes aren't usually funny."
Can confirm. I'm pretty sure it's Keaton Patti's writing, "forced a bot to watch 1000 hours of..." is his shtick. It's all hand written to read like an exaggerated, comedic Markov chain output.
It depends on what the joke is. I can see people making an image for a joke that they already have in their head. Or they can AI generate an image and think up with a caption to make whatever it generated is funny (partially clips does exactly this with clipart). Sometimes it can be completely AI generated because the humour comes from seeing how the model misconstrued what it was supposed to do. A lot of these require humans to do the work of curation.
I'd be kind of tempted to give these box art images to an AI and ask it to make the game. I suspect there would be much amusement to be had in seeing how they do at a cursed task like that.
tbh, there is some novelty when AI first imitates a distinct human style. And then it gets old immediately after not unlike when VC Twitter discovered AI could imitate Studio Ghibli art.
I've said more than once that no matter how much Ghibli stuff you train an AI on, it's never going to spontaneously come up with a Princess Mononoke or Spirited Away. People don't realize there's an aspect to creativity that dwells within the human brain and the morass of personal visceral human experience that can't be reconstructed and simulated from expression alone - it's a lossy process. And there's more to it than mere randomness and novelty.
That's why no matter how good AI gets, it's only ever as good as the human effort put into it. It's very good at being very technically mediocre.
> People don't realize there's an aspect to creativity that dwells within the human brain and the morass of personal visceral human experience that can't be reconstructed
Your point here seems to be based more on faith than anything concrete. It is a sibling with the idea humans have "immortal souls" and the like - something we would like to be true more than anything that actually is.
This being said, I do think AI systems are very bad at creativity. But I don't think that it's impossible that they could be, nor do I have any idea why, specifically, they are bad at creativity. At this point in interpretability research, anyone telling you they do know is lying.
>Your point here seems to be based more on faith than anything concrete. It is a sibling with the idea humans have "immortal souls" and the like - something we would like to be true more than anything that actually is.
No, I'm not invoking the concept of an immortal soul, and it's incredibly frustrating that this is the go-to assumption anyone makes when criticism of AI's creative capabilities.
It's entirely possible to be a pure physicalist while also believing AIs aren't capable of creativity because they aren't capable of being human, and don't have the necessary human experience to inform the processes they simulate, because creativity is fundamentally a means of human communication. That isn't actually an argument from the supernatural, and unless you believe it's possible to derive a brain simulation of Hayao Miyazaki complete with his lived experiences and memories simply by studying the specific technical aspects of his animation style in aggregate, then I think the why of AI's limitations in this regard should be obvious.
The problem is that they used to say that about chess. In the 1980s it was thought that grandmaster-level chess wasn't just algorithically looking at the board and computing scores for moves as chess programs did but something that required the intuitive powers of the human mind. After all, it's clear that Kasparov wasn't computing the scores of millions of possible moves across future board states in his head but simply "saw" the right one to take by a process he couldn't explain. And yet he was eventually beaten by a machine - not even one using a clever algorithm - just a machine that did pretty much what any stupid chess program did but faster. It turned out that human "intuition" wasn't needed.
> Sometimes, if the problem (like the injury or damage) was not discovered right away, the statute of limitations generally starts counting from the date the problem was discovered or should reasonably have been discovered, whichever comes first.
The problem should reasonably have been discovered when they signed the contract and it wasn’t fulfilled. No new information has come to light in the 30 years since.
reply