Google finance was an incredible portfolio tracking and research tool. Until they released v2 which took away all the functionality and replaced it with a news feed.
What’s most disappointing about Anthem was that the game had so much potential. The graphics, flying around like Ironman, sound, etc was incredible. But the world and content felt like you were playing a tech demo. It was like they finished polishing everything technical and were forced to launch before the game to rest on top of it was even started.
No other game has come close to capturing the absolute joy of flying in that game.
I still think that the storyline of the game and that the fact that an AT-AT just shows up in the middle of the storyline like you should know what it is seemed to hint the game might have at one point been intended to be a "Mandalorian simulator" (the central macguffins also had a very "Lost Mandalore" from Clone Wars and Rebels cartoons/"KOTOR" feel; the central quest hub pub was very Star Wars cantina-ish; etc). I don't think we'll ever get the full story on what happened, but it seemed like the game came out in a period where EA was worried they had lost the Star Wars license forever and might have panicked and over-corrected from a licensed game with a lot of excitement behind its storyline to an "original" property without the right writers to file the serial numbers off very well and without enough passion for whatever they were trying to make original about it. Whereas if they waited just a couple years they would have a shared Star Wars license again and the hype train of Disney+'s Mandalorian show, and a "Mandalorian simulator" might have been very well timed to be what "everyone" wanted.
One problem with live service games is management will be tempted to release it as a minimum viable product and add all the features that would make it competitive in later updates. That's all well and good if players are hooked enough to stay, but if they don't there will never be enough money to finish the game.
Seems like that description fits a whole lot of modern (read: everything from the past decade) games. And some of those even enjoy success and are beloved by many players for some reason, like Breath of the Wild.
I vividly remember when ChatGPT3.5 went fully mainstream, there were times where within minutes you would realize they were only serving up idiot mode and there was no point trying to do much until demand died down and they swapped back to the non-quantized version.
People called it lazy mode, in that instead of writing the script you asked for it would basically tell you to learn to code then check out xyz topics to tackle the problem.
Regarding lazy mode, I recall ChatGPT sometimes almost refusing to do a web search despite me asking explicitly for it, instead replying with speculation about what the search results likely would tell us. If I pretend to be angry that it didn’t search the web it would however do it. Haven’t noticed this in a while either.
It's like doing the calculations yourself (with whatever tools you want) and knowing what you're doing, steering the process yourself, rather than begging someone to give you the result so you can then show it off like you did the work. I can understand and explain what my calculator is doing and I'm not offloading decisions to it. Using a language model to shit out projects that you can't fully understand the structure of yourself is insane. Ceding control of any design decisions to a language model is insane. They're fine as second-order autocomplete and semantic search engines. Humans should be handling design and implementation entirely, making things for other humans. An LLM running in a loop can't build humane systems.
> Humans should be handling design and implementation entirely, making things for other humans. An LLM running in a loop can't build humane systems.
I tell the LLM what to do in its loop. It builds it. I tweak it until it is perfect. I care a lot about UI.
I'm mostly building my own UIs lately, but I find no problem with the development loop. I'm building much better UIs, because it's way easier to test things, and scrap things that I thought would work, but don't. It all happens in a matter of minutes.
On the other hand it annoys some of the most insufferable humans on the planet. As a ham who’s not a boomer who would gladly die with the airwaves silent but compliant with rules and regulations established assuming usage of the spectrum would grown instead of dwindle I encourage it. Fuck ‘em.
Worse trained on humanity in the online world, which a brief comparison of the sewage section on social media is far worse than people in the real world.
The goal isn’t positive PR. It’s to have governments take note and come down hard on Anthropic and OpenAI with regulations that they’ll ultimately have a hand in writing or providing testimony for.
Those regulations will ever so coincidentally make it difficult for anyone else to get as big as they are, and demonize open weights, Chinese AI, abliteration, etc
The NPOV policy has just lead to alternate ways to keep things aligned to the region that most prolific editors/contributors would occupy on an idealogical quadrant.
It’s similar to the way traditional media outlets that pride themselves on not being partisan in what they say, simply exert their bias via what they either don’t cover or inconvenient context/facts they leave out. The writing itself is seemingly neutral, except for the part where if they included the stories or details that run counter to their belief system, their readers might come to a problematic conclusion.
Are you saying it would be better to pick a specific ideological slant? If so, which one?
I am well aware of the existing Wiki slant, it’s certainly not perfect especially on highly political articles. But an imperfect attempt at NPOV seems better than no attempt at all.
Anthropic must see themselves as the most evil people on the planet then. Forcing a sentient being to endure a non-stop barrage of abuse from the general public would be an unimaginable crime.
reply