Jump to content
  • Advertisement


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2612 Excellent

About SeraphLance

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Personal Information

  • Industry Role
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. SeraphLance

    Using Perlin Noise to turn a vector

    Perlin noise is an N-to-1 mapping, meaning that whatever dimensionality your noise is, you end up with a one-dimensional result (usually represented as a grayscale color). So if you want to displace coordinates with perlin noise, you're going to have to displace each coordinate individually. You could do something like this: Vector3 YawPitchRollValues = new Vector3(Perlin1D(oldVec.x+offset1), Perlin1D(oldVec.y+offset2), Perlin1D(oldVec.z+offset3));
  2. I do virtually everything on the loading thread. The simplest answer to what you're asking is to just load all your assets before any other part of your engine needs it. So, for your UI textures, that entails loading them at program startup, before your UI is actually initialized. This is one of those things where just doing everything in the right order (if possible) can massively reduce the complexity you need to worry about. If you're worried about changing sizes on reloaded textures, you don't need size data immediately to begin with.
  3. Why do billions of unskilled people need to be able to do it? No education whatsoever was standard only a few hundred years ago, and now most developed nations have at least ten years. Yes, it's likely that in another two hundred years, something resembling a modern 4-5 year college curriculum will also be mandatory. Yes, if you lose your job you might be screwed, because you can't easily retrain in your lifetime. However, that's a short-term loss. You're going to grow old and die, and your kids if you have them will be educated in something else more relevant and employable. That's an actual economic problem to deal with; the rate of automation can (relatively) short-term cause labor issues. However, that makes discussion of a star-trek post-supply utopia the wrong problem to talk about. But yeah, if your problem is "what do I do if my white-collar job gets automated", then we're talking past one another. However, I don't think such a problem necessitates considering entirely new economic models, but rather a shorter working life until retirement, or continuing education (especially relevant in our field).
  4. That's a small part of the job pool created by technology. There are more musicians, actors, and writers today than during any era of human history. It's not because they were enabled by new technology, but because they were released by technology of having to do other things -- like, say, growing food. This is why major inventions and developments lead to revolutions across many unrelated fields. This is analogous to saying before the agricultural revolution, "If we're not all hunting for food, what are we going to do all day?" The answer is something else.
  5. SeraphLance

    Why A.I is impossible

    If I created a human being from whole cloth in a lab, I would have created an artificial intelligence. Whether AI is "organic" or "mechanical" has no bearing over whether or not it is AI. Aren't you an Atheist? I would think that outside of spiritual beliefs, everyone ought to think creating an AI is possible this way, even if we can't realistically do it now. I don't think it's a terribly interesting observation, honestly. It's kind of axiomatic, even.
  6. Yeah, I'm still not seeing much of a case here. We like to split "blue collar" and "white collar" up as if there's some fundamental binary difference, but it's a continuum, "Smarter" technology just broadens the range of white-collarness that machines can cover. In response, human labor opens up on the white end of the spectrum as we no longer need people doing the now-obsolete jobs. Someone earlier responded to my statement that the growth of automation will outpace the creation of jobs to develop and maintain said automation. That's semi-fallacious. It's true that technology opens technician jobs, but it's necessarily true that fewer technician jobs will open than are closed by the automation. That's the entire point. It's not just work centered around the new technology, but new work in general as we are allowed new bandwidth for labor. We should all be aware of this phenomenon given that we're arguing about job loss on a freaking game development site. It seems to me that the fear is that automation will cover the entire blue/white spectrum to the point where there's literally no work that can't be done by an automaton. That folds back into the original discussion on the other thread about whether an AI that can totally replace a human but doesn't simultaneously have human (or human-like) needs can exist As for CCP Grey's video, he's got a lot of specious reasoning. The "horses" shtick is a false equivalence because horses didn't invent cars; they're not the species that the economy in question is centered around. Now the short-term consequences of automation are observable. You can't just retrain a barista into a writer, and if your job is replaced by a machine you may have difficulty re-entering the work force. However, the idea that automation will reach the point where we as a species have nothing to do? That's going to take more convincing.
  7. It is. In fact, it's a huge problem that's hotly debated practically every election cycle. The problem is that curtailing freedoms is seen as a big no-no, and a lot of campaign spending isn't just politicians spending money, but non-profits spending money on their behalf. Blocking that is blocking endorsement, which is an infringement of freedom of speech. That's enshrined in our constitution, making it political suicide to attack in any seriously manner (and rightly so, IMO). It goes hand-in-hand with the controversial "businesses are effectively people" supreme court decisions. It's not always about what is pragmatic or fair, but what the constitution guarantees (or what the Supreme Court thinks the constitution guarantees).
  8. If you had to stick them somewhere in the left-right scale, I'd call them left-wing because their political structure bears much more in common with practical socialism (i.e. Soviets) than it does anything resembling capitalism. It's also the logical extreme of "big government", which isn't exactly a right-wing ideology. However, that's for the modern left and right, at least within the United States. It's important to remember that the Republicans prior to The New Deal era were collectivists in a sense. Now they're somewhat individualist, but the left was the individualist side of the coin once upon a time. Blame the Bull Moose people, the "neoliberals" of the early 20th century. Personally though, I think trying to shoehorn everything into left/right is a poor decision. Modern parties are much more syncretic these days. Even the whole 2-axis model has pretty significant limitations.
  9. The problem with categorizing fascists as right-wing is that a central pillar of fascism is state ownership of industry. That's about as un-right as you can get. Nationalism is certainly a right-wing characteristic, but I have to question the idea that nationalism should have higher priority than ownership of industry when categorizing it on the political spectrum.
  10. The thing I don't buy about the whole automation angle is that we've been using technology to make people's jobs obsolete for tens of thousands of years, yet somehow an overwhelming majority of us are still employed because new jobs open up in response. Why is it treated as a foregone conclusion that this will stop happening at some point? Frankly this sounds about as silly to me as the whole "zombie apocalypse" shtick.
  11. SeraphLance

    Why A.I is impossible

    Setting aside the whole spirituality/soul angle, "human-like" AI exists because humans exist; we are walking examples of ourselves. If the human body is sufficient to create a human being, then we can clearly create AI. That's not to say it's a guarantee that souls don't exist or can be emulated, but to assert that would take us outside the bounds of provability and into belief. Mind you, there's a far cry from creating people and creating the whole "self-improving superhumans" that most quacks "futurists" worry about. In that regard I wouldn't call it "impossible", but I certainly see no reason to believe such a thing is possible.
  12. SeraphLance

    if constexpr, C++17

    Running that code on the command-line (cl /std:c++latest test.cpp) and with the necessary type_traits include works perfectly fine. Are you sure there's not some other error that's causing the branch to fail to compile?
  • Advertisement

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

Participate in the game development conversation and more when you create an account on GameDev.net!

Sign me up!