Hard disagree: The above advice is relevant to everyone, even if you're not struggling to survive. We are all victims of capitalism, and even those of us who are living relatively comfortably under this system need to recognize that the billionaire class are the enemy of all life on Earth. It's not a good system for you just because you get the best table scraps.
If you stop caring about those who are barely scraping by just because you're not then you're a fucking idiot.
For anyone not familiar with this game, or anyone who's only familiarity is through the trailers (which really focus on tone and visuals), I really want to recommend the videos by YouTuber Riloe, who has been playing early builds with the devs and chatting to them extensively about the game. They're really well produced videos, and they really help to explain the tone of the game, the interesting mechanical ideas behind it, and what exactly this company is trying to achieve. Obviously, take with a grain of salt, the guy is clearly a fan and these videos aren't really trying to be critical, so this should all be read as basically press releases;
This antishooter game is beautiful and horrifying
I'm really excited for this game. Not just for the visuals, but for everything they're doing with the mechanical design. The idea of playing as scavengers trapped between two warring factions is incredibly cool, and based on early previews it sounds like there are a lot of very clever design elements, especially in the AI, all built to back up that core idea. For example enemies intelligently prioritize targets; a tank won't focus on infantry if there's an enemy tank present, and even when it does target the infantry it'll use its machine guns, not the main cannon. Enemies will focus on you if you make yourself the biggest threat, but if you're smart and follow the flow of battle you can keep their focus elsewhere.
That's really smart stuff, and by all accounts it works very well. I also really like what the studio is doing more broadly. They're really trying to push back on a lot of the toxic practices in the gaming industry. I'll be getting the game day one, mostly just to reward them for trying to do something different.
The same voters who are tuned off by Project 2025 are also going to be less than thrilled about the idea of a presidential candidate literally being in bed with a deranged conspiracy theorist.
So yes, more media exposure would be the answer. Get her views out there; the whole thing, unedited. Show people the horrific things she believes.
You would. He wouldn't.
If the intent here is to discuss games that are actually doing something new and different, Space Marine 2 really needs to be in this conversation.
At first glance it's just a very, very polished third person action game, but the more you pay attention the more you'll notice the excellent mechanical design of the combat. There are some very smart, very subtle choices that have been made in the gameplay mechanics that affect the dramatic flow and tension of combat in surprising ways. Someone designing this game actually thought about the pacing of fights, and that's something you just don't see in games all that often.
Also on a purely technical level there's the extremely smart bit of coding that allows them to render ungodly numbers of enemies in screen at once, behaving as coherent swarms that move and flow together, and dear God is it incredible to watch.
The first game was a great Warhammer game (for the time). This one is just a great game, no qualification needed.
So you primary in Dems who will support ranked choice. This is .ml, surely you've all heard of entryism?
While truly defining pretty much any aspect of human intelligence is functionally impossible with our current understanding of the mind, we can create some very usable "good enough" working definitions for these purposes.
At a basic level, "reasoning" would be the act of drawing logical conclusions from available data. And that's not what these models do. They mimic reasoning, by mimicking human communication. Humans communicate (and developed a lot of specialized language with which to communicate) the process by which we reason, and so LLMs can basically replicate the appearance of reasoning by replicating the language around it.
The way you can tell that they're not actually reasoning is simple; their conclusions often bear no actual connection to the facts. There's an example I linked elsewhere where the new model is asked to list states with W in their name. It does a bunch of preamble where it spells out very clearly what the requirements and process are; assemble a list of all states, then check each name for the presence of the letter W.
And then it includes North Dakota, South Dakota, North Carolina and South Carolina in the list.
Any human being capable of reasoning would absolutely understand that that was wrong, if they were taking the time to carefully and systematically work through the problem in that way. The AI does not, because all this apparent "thinking" is a smoke show. They're machines built to give the appearance of intelligence, nothing more.
When real AGI, or even something approaching it, actually becomes a thing, I will be extremely excited. But this is just snake oil being sold as medicine. You're not required to buy into their bullshit just to prove you're not a technophobe.
Noted. I'll have to play around with that sometime.
Despite my obvious stance as an AI skeptic, I have no problem with putting it to use in places where it can be used effectively (and ethically). I've just found that in practice, those uses are varnishingly few. I'm not on some noble quest to rid the world of computers, I just don't like being sold overhyped crap.
I'm also hesitant to try to rebuild any part of my workflow around the current generation of these tools, when they obviously aren't going to exist in a few years, or will exist but at an exorbitant price. The cost to run genAI is far, far higher than any entity (even Microsoft) has any willingness to sustain long term. We're in the "give it away or make it super cheap to get everyone bought in" phase right now, but the enshittification will come hard and fast on this one, much sooner than anyone thinks. OpenAI are literally burning billions just in compute right now. It's unsustainable. Short of some kind of magical innovation that brings those compute costs down a hundred or thousand fold, this isn't going to stick around.
Read some history mate. The luddites weren't technophobes either. They hated the way that capitalism was reaping all the rewards of industrializion. They were all for technological advancement, they just wanted it to benefit everyone.
That's more like it. And doubly so if you can't read it.