Not to pick on you or anything, but I just can’t understand this perspective.

Like, imagine wanting less action in your Marvel movies because you can just youtube real fights in Denny’s restaurants.

I took an entire week off for Rebirth, and the whole time was like “Whee! :D”

No problem! There is about 40 hours of walking down a single path, but I actually like 13 a lot.

I’ve never seen google do that, by the way. That’s crazy.

The paradigm shift system also introduces this… I dunno, ducking and weaving style gameplay? It’s like you’re the director of an orchestra looking for the right musical swell at the right time.

This paradigm shifting is the same kind that you do in other games when a party member needs to stop and focus on healing, but now that you have to shift your entire team’s focus, while keeping in mind that each role really needs time and momentum to truly be effective, you end up making these real-time opportunity cost decisions about which urgent thing needs the most attention, or whether you can split your focus even though a team that can do this is much weaker at both things it’s trying to accomplish. I really like the way 13 forces you to think about party formation.

I also give it credit for establishing the stagger meter, which was such a good idea that they’ve included it in like every game since then.

That would be 13. :p

I actually really liked 16’s main storyline. Not sure where I rank it, exactly, but parts of it were extremely cool.

What I did not like were the barrel-bin jrpg-tier sidequests where characters show up out of the blue because they’re supposed to be in this scene and “you really thought I wouldn’t see the two of ya’s slinkin’ off” was all I guess the project had the budget for.

I can’t tell you how many times it felt like a character would tell me to go somewhere to do a thing because they can’t go, and so I’d go do it, only for them to show up anyway so they could thank me with sad music.

It was just exhausting how shallow and uninspired most of the side content was.

Funny enough, 13 is actually the one I’ve replayed the most. I think I’ve beaten it like 3 different times, in addition to whatever runs I didn’t finish. It’s kind of grown on me as one of my favorite ones.

Do be ready for about 40 hours of single-path walkways if you ever go back, though. I don’t actually think this is the problem some people make it out to be, but the game isn’t polarizing for no reason.

I suppose the whole white supremacy thing shouldn’t surprise me, but still, I did not know this. Thanks for being such a firebrand about it here, I guess, haha.

People who already have a desire for the real thing usually won’t be satisfied by pc games or whatever.

Exactly correct.

And, what desire is it that 6-year-old-AI enjoyers have again? I guess the 6-years-old part is incidental?

So you know what to do, then.

Metal Gear Solid V >:)

I bought that game day one, actually played like the first 4 missions, thought to myself “Wow, this is going to be incredible! I should wait until I have a loong weekend, hehe~”, and then never touched it again.

I am glacially making my way through the first 4 now, though.

Tonight, Australia sleeps for the first time in ten years.

So, you imagine a world where friends of yours say things like “God, I want to kill people so badly. Fuck, I just wish society would let me.” And then what, they play Call of Duty until they climax?

If that’s how it is, god damn, maybe I do agree with Jack Thompson.

Is it actually “cute” that this person allegedly overinflates the worth of checkout labor, or were you being condescending?

Ah, but here we have to get pedantic a little bit: producing an AGI through current known methods is intractable.

I didn’t quite understand this at first. I think I was going to say something about the paper leaving the method ambiguous, thus implicating all methods yet unknown, etc, whatever. But yeah, this divide between solvable and “unsolvable” shifts if we ever break NP-hard and have to define some new NP-super-hard category. This does feel like the piece I was missing. Or a piece, anyway.

e.g. humans don’t fit the definition either.

I did think about this, and the only reason I reject it is that “human-like or -level” matches our complexity by definition, and we already have a behavior set for a fairly large n. This doesn’t have to mean that we aren’t still below some curve, of course, but I do struggle to imagine how our own complexity wouldn’t still be too large to solve, AGI or not.

Anyway, the main reason I’m replying again at all is just to make sure I thanked you for getting back to me, haha. This was definitely helpful.

And what does that mean, you fill a document with feminist phrases and ctrl+v over every word ‘woman’ the word ‘man’? That is… wow, that is incredibly academic. I’m actually hit-stunned by how smart that is.

rationally and logically studied the ideology call the practitioners female supremacists,

Wow. That was remarkably mask off. You watch a lot of Ben Shapiro, buddy?

Ah, yeah. That’s a good point, actually.

Hey! Just asking you because I’m not sure where else to direct this energy at the moment.

I spent a while trying to understand the argument this paper was making, and for the most part I think I’ve got it. But there’s a kind of obvious, knee-jerk rebuttal to throw at it, seen elsewhere under this post, even:

If producing an AGI is intractable, why does the human meat-brain exist?

Evolution “may be thought of” as a process that samples a distribution of situation-behaviors, though that distribution is entirely abstract. And the decision process for whether the “AI” it produces matches this distribution of successful behaviors is yada yada darwinism. The answer we care about, because this is the inspiration I imagine AI engineers took from evolution in the first place, is whether evolution can (not inevitably, just can) produce an AGI (us) in reasonable time (it did).

The question is, where does this line of thinking fail?

Going by the proof, it should either be:

• That evolution is an intractable method. 60 million years is a long time, but it still feels quite short for this answer.
• Something about it doesn’t fit within this computational paradigm. That is, I’m stretching the definition.
• The language “no better than chance” for option 2 is actually more significant than I’m thinking. Evolution is all chance. But is our existence really just extreme luck? I know that it is, but this answer is really unsatisfying.

I’m not sure how to formalize any of this, though.

The thought that we could “encode all of biological evolution into a program of at most size K” did made me laugh.

but there’s no reason to think we can’t achieve it

They provide a reason.

Just because you create a model and prove something in it, doesn’t mean it has any relationship to the real world.

What are we science deniers now?