mycocola

Very few people actually "think".

Unknowable. And a callous notion.

- As models get better, have you considered some kind of filter or particular cadence to serve as a reminder that the user is not talking to a human?

- The videos felt scripted and dishonest

I think there is a meaningful distinction to be made between a human reading and an AI company consuming data without consent in order to train their models. Certainly if enough people feel the same then what AI companies are doing is "wrong" .

I adore your games. Would be curious to know your thoughts about using AI for game development. Personally I find it gross, but I am trying to be open to different views.

A reasonable compromise in the face of frostbite and hookworm.

I suppose critical thinking skills are also as bad, making you question the state of the world. Problem solving is another one, deluding one into believing there are solutions to suffering.

why didn't the previous authors, supposedly grass-fed genuine checkmark blood-through-their-veins humans didn't notice the other 9-8-7-6-5... games, and still released their own version?

a) To make it better

b) To learn, in service of a) or another project

It's impressive that Fable 5 was able to resynthesise something like this from its training data, but I am really not looking forward to more of this. What's the point?

My point of view is that code is the experience. Dealing with the constraints of code is one of the ways game design evolves as one iterates over what could be cool and filter for what is possible.

LLMs are not beings with thoughts or feelings, and if being mean to them were to somehow yield better results it would be no different than a cheat code in a game, or just constitute as clever use of game mechanics.

The comparison fails because I don't send numbers to my potatoes either, but I do send thousands to calculators without a please and thank you.

Practicing communications skills with LLMs I can get, but asserting that people who don't are playing god? Getting off on power?

The similarity to human interaction is irrelevant.

No one apologises to a potato being peeled, nor compliments it for doing a great job being mashed.

The two states are in no way in opposition to each other. In fact, experiencing deep meditation can improve one's ability to get into that desired productive flow.

Seems well-designed. Great job! Sorry you didn't hear back from the comittee.

The interesting bit about this physical experiment is that the water in the cup never starts at 100 celsius. That the act of pouring significantly reduces temperature is well-documented, so in some sense the LLM output is surprising.

They're entertainment, yes, but really not the same. I'll look for a specific game to play, I'll look for a specific movie to watch, and I won't play a game when I want to watch a movie.

Really think it’s entirely wrong to label someone as a bully for not conforming to current, perhaps bad, practices.

I use rust for gamedev (not bevy). I'm unlikely to consider anything else exactly because of stability and throughput.

Just as a thought experiment: Governments could mandate banks to prevent their customers from spending beyond what'll go to rent/mortgage. It'd certainly prevent overdue or missed payments. Would that be a net positive, or would that prevent or slow people from learning fiscal responsibility and the benefits that go along with that?

- Mad Max is not a great example of anarchy, as the last couple of movies featured a government led by an autocrat (haven't seen the other ones)

- The Play Store being bad does not mean the App Store is not also bad

- How do you know most of the world likes the authority of the App Store? Is it not more likely that most of the world are ignorant of its rules, and assumes a free and open marketplace?

Maybe it's not a great idea to allow a company to decide what software users can run, and I am inclined to believe that Murphy's Law will apply. Ultimately, software is freedom of speech.

Interesting tool. I do something similar when I think it's important to focus on just getting the words out: I close my eyes, or look away from the screen.

AI is already tricking people -- images, text, video, voice. As these tools become more advanced, so does the cost of verification.

Based on your workflow, I think there is considerable risk of you being wooed by AI into believing what you are doing is worthwhile. The plan AI offers is coherent, specific, it sounds good. It's validation. Sugar.

I think most programmers would agree that thinking represents the majority of our time. Writing code is no different than writing down your thoughts, and that process in itself can be immensely productive -- it can spark new ideas, grant epiphanies, or take you in an entirely new direction altogether. Writing is thinking.

I think an over-reliance, or perhaps any reliance, on AI tools will turn good programmers into slop factories, as they consistently skip over a vital part of creating high-quality software.

You could argue that the prompt == code, but then you are adding an intermediary step between you and the code, and something will always be lost in translation.

I'd say just write the code.

It's pretty fun, but not in any way part of the survivor-genre.

That entirely depends on the game. Recent example is Risk of Rain 2, which had frequent hitches caused by the C# garbage collector. Someone made a mod to fix this by delaying the garbage collection until the next load-screen — in other words, controlled memory leakage.

The developers of Risk of Rain 2 were undoubtedly aware of the hitches, but it interfered with their vision of the game, and affected users were left with a degraded experience.

It's worth mentioning that when game developers scope of the features of their game, available tech informs the feature-set. Faster languages thus enable a wider feature-set.

From experience, I can say that there are many games with transferable skills.

At the top of my list is Factorio, and second is actually World of Warcraft.

More generally, there is a lot to learn from game design that you can learn through playing. The question of how to make taxes palatable, for example, is really no different to the question of how to challenge a player without frustrating them.

I believe the value of games are poorly understood, partially because chess, a game that has nothing left to teach us, muddies the conversation

Can't release unfinished/broken games, when what they're releasing are not games at all.

There are about 30-35 quality titles being put out on steam alone, every day of the week, weekends included.

Absolutely not. The vast majority of games released on Steam are not good. You can verify this yourself by looking at new releases. Maybe one or two out the ones released the 19th of June are _potentially_ interesting.

Quality, defined as well-produced games in unsaturated niches, is really the only thing that matters, but marketing can be a multiplier of that quality. I've seen many games that blame marketing for their failure, and I have seen many games that fail despite their marketing. Usually those games are not compelling, and reviews will confirm this. It's rare to see games fail despite their high quality.

What is government for, if not for solving the issues of the populace it is governing?