Kalbear

It absolutely is, especially one that sidelines you for an extended period of time like he was. History doesn't mean that they're perennially injured; it means they have an injury, and that likely means that that part of them is going to be weaker and more prone to issues. That the injury required surgery is an even worse sign. I wouldn't be worried about him not starting all that much - being on Georgia means you won't get a ton of shots given the rest of the talent there. I would be worried about an offensive lineman having ankle surgery.

An injury history for an OL is not at all a good sign. It's one of the best ways to determine how successful an OL will be in the league.

Huh. I took it as exactly the opposite - IE, we don't have other cues to gauge sentience, so we must only take them at their word, and if we don't believe them then that's our fault. My point is that it is not sufficient at all and that it isn't a matter of them being convincing; it's just not a valid test whatsoever to have them 'tell us' when they're sentient.

I think I've already answered the latter - they do, often, end up talking to each other when put into an environment where they can, and they end up doing really scary things like inventing their own weird languages. In terms of curiousity and whatnot - that's another odd one to hang sentience on given a whole lot of humans will absolutely be taught to not show that. Thanks, @fionwe1987, this is more of what I was getting at. You cannot measure sentience by the language outputs themselves. You need to observe the other state changes simultaneously. Expressing curiosity or anger or sadness is not enough.

I don't think this is accurate. It is a manifest of learned patterns of self worth/awareness. It can be trained just as any other thing can be. You can ask ChatGPT to behave like an aggrieved spouse or act insulted and it'll do so, convincingly. For a couple months it famously had some problems where it was both more inaccurate and more snarky than usual as well. Emotionally-laced dialogues and communication is not at all hard to simulate given enough pattern matching, which we absolutely have in spades thanks to social media.

Why? Or rather, why is getting angry a sign of sentience? In that case it's certainly true Chat GPT has already shown that, and Grok absolutely does because it's a super douchey chatbot. They're not, true, but my point is that none of them are particularly demonstrable by use of language any more. Or if they are, ChatGPT and their like already have mastered them.

Are those how you gauge sentience? Interesting. My point is that the ability to argue or Eben produce language at all has been shown to be incredibly not the proof of sentience we thought it was. If you ask chatgpt to act like it needs to convince you of sentience it will do a decent job of it, right now! As it turns out LLMs are so good at acting like humans because it's likely that's how we use language too. It isn't thought out carefully or artfully decided, it's just words coming after the next word towards some goal. Them telling us - or us believing them - is not sufficient as a Turing test.

Yeah, it's gonna be remarkable how amazingly those guys will play on another team in 3 years time

This, by the way, is inaccurate. It's true if you only look at one specific program (to a point) but if you model systems as competing and cooperating sets of algorithms you end up being just fine. Basically both are true if you are assuming computers must provide a solution that is 100% true and accurate. Programs don't have to do this.

Why should we believe them?

We almost certainly won't unless we develop significantly better testing methodologies. Because right now doing things like LLM have shown our speech and communication isn't actually that sophisticated.

Shit you're on to me

What can I say, I'm fuckin awesome

Also, to go back to the actual topic the thing I'm far more worried about is the same thing Israel is being dinged on - that the tools they're using is incredibly failure-prone. That might be okay when you're trying to identify a tree, but it's not great when using it to detain people or to call airstrikes.

There aren't any, but please continue. And no, I doubt you care at all. I doubt it's a big deal whatsoever until it has a possibility of affecting you. Abuse is abuse. Yeah, it's worse, but you're still okay with that 1-2%. I don't think it would be far worse, at least not for a while. That's the thing about authoritarian systems - they don't tend to prosecute everyone. They barely harass most people. They just make sure that you know that you could, at any time, be harassed. For some reason or no reason. Which is exactly the state we have right now for a whole lot of folks.

I'm sure the abuse will be greater. But the potential for abuse by Trump or anyone else will still be there. You should care about the potential for abuse regardless of who is in control. To be clear I'm not equating anything - I'm saying that the problem exists now, not in the future. That said it likely doesn't matter that much when laws aren't really important and no one cares about holding powerful people accountable.

It doesn't; it applies to ALL the country. My point is that abuse is the entire MO already.

We are already using facial scanning and a whole lot of other data to block, suspend, or restrict people regularly. We do it for all sorts of stupid-ass shit, like a 7 year old having the same name as a terrorist and being blocked from flying. There are already no actual process rules or rights around this. The difference, as I said, is that you're now worried about it applying to you.

It already is for half the country, or more. If you don't like it, you should not like it right now.

This is already the case, just not for people like you.

I think that's cool, but also I think it's somewhat problematic that a lot of these works are heavily derivative of existing artists to the point that they're copying. I don't know that that's how you're using this, mind you, but if you're producing something that has a ton of artwork that is in the similar vein of existing artists and those artists aren't getting any credit I think that's pretty immoral - especially if you're then making money off of that.

If they're selling that, yes.

It's not ideal. I don't know it's the worst, but it's an engine designed and optimized around not a ton of interactivity, a ton of multiplayer/networking support and lag-tolerant, a matchmaking system, poor communication tools and a large-scale amount of state transferrence from other disconnected entities. The good parts are that it's great at rendering and keeping in scope large scales of areas and does a decent job of interior and exterior systems. The real problem is that the tooling and modifications and systems that a RPG would want - NPCs moving around regularly, location and event triggering, large amounts of objects being modified in state, in-game cutscene rendering, inventory management, a large amount of different actions and interactions with environments - are things that basically none of the other users of Frostbite want. Which means you have to branch off and hope that the core frostbite engine doesn't break all your shit.

Nah, that person has major issues. Looks good, and interestingly to me a more thematic return from Logan and something close to Old Man Logan.

I love the idea of Aaron Paul and Ron Perlman being in this. Especially Perlman.