DdCno1

The above comment is an example of this getting waved away.

Yeah, no. This comment alone would go against any government NDA - and this user is just some random person who, going by their comment history, most certainly has no inside knowledge of anything.

I sometimes wonder what needs to happen to people in order for them to confidently write nonsense like this.

I sometimes wonder what needs to happen to people in order for them to confidently write nonsense like this.

It seems like the entire industry is in pure panic about AI, not just Google. Everyone hopes that LLMs will end years of homeopathic growth through iteration of long-existing technology, which is why it attracts tons of venture capital.

Google, which sits where IBM was decades ago, is too big, too corporate and too slow now, so they needed years to react to this fad. When they finally did, all they were able to come up with was a rushed equivalent of existing LLMs that suffers from all of the same problems.

It’s an unholy alliance of both, I’d argue.

I agree. The only application that is fine for this in my opinion is using it solely for entertainment, as a toy.

The problem is of course that everyone and their mothers are pouring billions into what clearly should only be used as a toy, expecting it to perform miracles it currently can not and might never be able to pull off.

Its not chatgpt that’s just default config u can use the API endpoint to point to any chatgpt api compatible llm.

Since the issue with hallucinations is shared by all LLMs, not just ChatGPT, this doesn’t change anything.

Are you seriously trying to push your ChatGPT “tool” in response to an article about language models like this one having substantial issues? “Not guaranteed” - yes, obviously, that’s the point of the article - and from a quick look at your code, I don’t see how this nonsense addresses any of that.

One of the most convincing tricks he pulled off was transporting two people from the stage to what looked like a believable beach. Totally fooled me (but I was a kid when I watched it).

Edit: I started to figure out that something was amiss soon after, because every single one of the supposedly “random” people he invited on stage to do his tricks with (usually by throwing plastic balls into the audience) wore incredibly “inoffensive” and poorly fitted clothes. At some point, I was able to spot which people he would end up picking from a mile away even before he had done so.

This user meant the price per kWh of battery capacity. The Tesla Roadster was little more than an expensive proof of concept that was vastly inferior compared to the Lotus Elise it was based on.

I have to wonder if people are serious with these absurd suggestions or what on Earth you are trying to achieve by writing this. This is about as realistic at demanding that America should build a second moon entirely out of cheese.

Which is why the EU is also starting to clamp down on this (finally).

The “well-regulated militia” part afterwards isn’t vague, but gets ignored by self-proclaimed “originalists”.

They go after this platform, because it’s a favorite of mass shooters. You know this.

The AR-15 is designed for hunting humans, not game.

The studios who do this mostly aren’t looking for an actual artistic vision. Play any of the recent Ubisoft open world games and you see at best moments of it during distinct, isolated sections (usually trips caused by substance use) that were clearly tackled by smaller teams within the large group of developers. The rest were busy making 15 different types of trees.

They do exist and in greater numbers and variety than ever before. Play Undertale, Baba is You, BeamNG.drive, FTL, Disco Elysium, Emily is Away, Islanders, NEO Scavenger, Rodina, Whispers of a Machine, Proteus, etc.

Totally random examples, but I could name dozens more. We are spoiled with great games that are pure expressions of their developers’ visions. There are more of them than anyone can realistically ever play.

That’s not how this works. You can comparatively easily scale up art departments, but you can not do the same with engineering and design. It’s also much less difficult to find competent artists in their respective niches than programmers and designers. Art skills can be far more easily taught and to a wider variety of people regardless of their inherent talent than software engineering and game design at the required level. Especially in the area of software engineering, game studios also have to compete with other fields with inherently better work/life balance, which is far less so the case with e.g. texture artists, modelers and animators.

Art can also be produced sequentially in large numbers and making more of it at a certain high enough level of quality makes a game appear more valuable to consumers. It’s practically guaranteed: Spend more on art, have more stuff you can impress people with, a more enticing value proposition. You can spend a fortune on game design and programming, but that’s invisible and there is far less of a guarantee that it’ll work out in the end (see: the phenomenon referred to as development hell), let alone attract customers.

Try marketing a game on mechanics and design instead of graphics. Most people pay maybe 15 to 30 seconds of attention to promotional material at best before making a purchasing decision. The vast majority of gamers do not read reviews, let alone whining essays about how some journalist doesn’t care about graphics (which have been written since the 1980s - there’s nothing new under the Sun). You can wow customers with fancy trailers and gorgeous screenshots, but you can not explain why your game that you spent 100 million on game design alone on has better game design than that blockbuster with individually modeled and animated facial hair.

Would you describe someone who has likely driven a Jeep as smart?