>Goes on to explain how they used 3D blender...which wasn't available until 1998.
In the early 90s, there was enough money in this kind of software that you could have hired a specialist 3D artist to use the software that was available at the time, e.g. LightWave 3D. When it's only a single-person project, I think it's reasonable to stick with what you know.
In context, it's talking about sprites that are going to get non-integer scaled anyway (in-game pickups), so it's just about maintaining a consistent detail level. If those specific sprites had their resolution increased, everything else would need its resolution increased to match them.
Inconsistent resolution isn't necessarily a bad thing, e.g. Elite for the BBC Micro changes video mode part way down the screen so it can display both high resolution monochrome wireframe 3D and a lower resolution color map/UI below, but it's not idiomatic to the MS-DOS style this game is going for.
GLQuake introduced the r_wateralpha setting, which allowed transparent water, but the maps were still compiled with visibility calculations that assumed the water surfaces were opaque. You got visual artifacts unless you enabled r_novis to ignore the pre-calculated visibility calculations. Modern computers can handle it, but this was a heavy performance cost at the time.
To work around this, people used an unofficial tool to patch the maps to support transparent water:
In the final video, it looks like the destructible vases take several shots to destroy. IMO, they should only take one. Real life vases only take one, so requiring more makes the gun feel weak. It seems to be cosmetic anyway, so there's no game balance reason to require more.
Capitalism is the most effective driver of progress known.
Capitalism has lifted enormous numbers of people out of absolute poverty and is a great positive for the world.
Inequality is an unavoidable side-effect of capitalism.
The optimal risk:benefit tradeoff depends on the resources you have available.
It can be rational behavior for a poor person to take greater risks with their health than a rich person, because the value of wealth has strongly diminishing returns. I personally believe we should have state-enforced wealth redistribution to limit this scenario to a reasonable minimum, but I'm not so naive as to think eliminating it entirely would be the globally optimal solution. In practice, "everybody gets identical protection from pesticides" means "everybody is poor".
The way I see it, there are three possible outcomes:
1. AI works worse than expected.
Our economies are depending on this not to be the case, so it triggers the Greater Depression. Widespread poverty and misery ensue.
2. AI works as exactly as expected.
This means whoever controls it gains enormous power over everybody else. There's no possibility of resistance: the Second Amendment doesn't matter when your oppressor has fully automated murder drone factories. We enter a dystopia beyond anything Orwell imagined. Note that this is an arms race, which means there's no limit to resources it can consume. Billionaires are fighting over who gets to be king of the world and they don't care how much you're paying for RAM.
3. AI works better than expected.
This means the "recursive self improvement" plans succeeds, and the "intelligence explosion" scenario happens. This, with probability very close to one, results in the sudden extinction of all life. Human values are a highly complex result of our shared evolutionary history. Something that did not share any part of that history will have profoundly alien values, e.g. "minimize training loss". If it's vastly more intelligent than us, it will be able to fulfill those alien values which extreme efficacy. There are very few goals of the "make number go up" kind that don't result in everybody dead when taken to the logical conclusion.
But our oppressors do have automated murder drone factories and have for years. AI doesn't need to work for billionaires to keep building their dystopia.
To complete the analogy, it's like nukes, except we don't have the slightest idea how to calculate the odds of it igniting the atmosphere. (And note that in reality, while the Trinity test "ignite the atmosphere" calculations were correct, we failed to correctly calculate the fallout of the Castle Bravo test with lethal consequences).
Burden of proof that ai tools aren't dogshit isn't really on me, so pipe down and use a more reasonable register you pissant. This site, even this thread is filled with evidence. You're in no position to demand anything, especially not something apparently demanded in bad faith. A request for info I'd be happy to meet, but not this.
There are many cases out there of people proving that it does happen. I have personal text not published that do trigger all detectors between 70-100% AI depending on the tool. I wont be sharing these, as "providers" of these "tools" would simply add it to training data and continue to merrily overfit.
Bottom line, transformers regress to the mean like many other models, if you as a person produce output aligned with mean of corpus, you'll trigger detection. More importantly, evading detectors is trivial. Find a corpus of text from an author, get an llm to write a note on style, parlance, habits in writing etc. and then use that voice file to drive outputs from an llm. If the source text didnt register as AI, the new ai output also reliably avoids detection.
So my problem is, detection doesnt work, false positives are fact, so these tools at best offer harm.
A bigger problem¸ undermining your request for proof beyond that which many before me, and including me, burned in an effort to make folks see reason, is that even if i handed you proof on a silver platter you wouldnt understand it. If you could, you'd already understand, because the problem and the math are quite simple. Every example text i've offered in the past now registers 100% human, but many I kept to myself continue to show the same problem, and that never changed. So why would I waste my few remaining tools for sanity checking, when all i can expect from that endevour is losing a tool and shifting nothing in the conversation? No, best I keep that to myself for now.
>If I am not a very good writer, that means an LLM IS actually better than me
If you're not a very good writer, I'll at least skim your work to see if it contains any good ideas. If it's slop, I'll just close the tab. You already told me it's not worth caring about, so I'll agree with your decision.
In the early 90s, there was enough money in this kind of software that you could have hired a specialist 3D artist to use the software that was available at the time, e.g. LightWave 3D. When it's only a single-person project, I think it's reasonable to stick with what you know.
reply