• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2214 Excellent

About deltaKshatriya

  • Rank

Personal Information

Recent Profile Visitors

12335 profile views
  1. Why A.I is impossible

    Well the question is what do you define as thinking? If thinking is simply defined as small pieces acting in accordance to produce some sort of output to an input, then wouldn't a search engine qualify as thinking? It's not human thinking, in the sense that it thinks using some sort of search algorithm. Something similar could be said for a natural language engine. A navigation algorithm does also think in that sense. Moreover, AGI would emerge from these sort of things interacting with one another in ways we didn't foresee. Kind of like the general goal of machine learning. So if we cannot foresee how these things would interact with one another, how it would utilize algorithms, what it would emphasize, etc., it's form of thinking would seem alien. We wouldn't see it as 'thinking' necessarily. Then there's just hardware. Machines are built on transistors, and inherently use base two. We are built on neurons and count on 10 fingers. We perceive through eyes, ears, skin, nose, etc. Machines can perceive differently. Machines use different means to perceive similar things. Moreover, machines can perceive things we simply cannot. These are the reasons I think any machine intelligence would be alien.
  2. Star Wars: The Last Jedi

    Absolutely agree with this here. A lot of the criticisms are 'x needs to be explained or y needs to be explained' and while I do agree with that, there's only like 2ish hours in a movie, as is the new one is pretty damned long. Granted it didn't answer questions in the first film (which, to be fair, this is still a trilogy...answering all the questions in the second film doesn't really make sense either IMO). And to be fair, Finn's first gut instinct is pretty much to run away, something he continues to try to do in TLJ. He has his struggles too... I'd also like to add that it's not necessarily about older fans vs newer fans, but rather how much you valued the original trilogy. Not necessarily age (although age probably does make at least some difference, as I'm a self professed millennial in any case...). I, like mikeman, don't really value the original trilogy as much. IMO it's not that big a deal personally, and in my case, that's entirely because I didn't experience them at release time. That and my own opinion is that they didn't really age well. Arguably, as stated before, it's just that Disney isn't really sticking with canonical stories. The 3D version of Rogue One exists? I didn't know. It's probably not worth waiting for anyways. I've always thought 3d is pretty useless tbh. But hey *shrug* to each his/her own here.
  3. Why A.I is impossible

    I'm gonna say that this looks really trolly, given the excessive use of circular logic... But the discussion is interesting enough in itself: is it possible to achieve a true human like AGI (as @ChaosEngine elucidated for us). I'm also gonna agree with ChaosEngine: it's not impossible to create a true AGI, but it will probably be borderline impossible for a true human like AGI, primarily because our first true AGIs are almost certainly going to think in a manner completely alien to us, for a lot of reasons, starting from hardware, going all the way to things like what will AGI emerge from (one could argue that a search engine does 'think' for example, just not in a manner that we recognize. An argument could be made that a 'thought' is the response to the queries. It's a weak argument, but it's more for an example rather than anything else) And as @Oberon_Command fairly concisely pointed out, we still don't really know what consciousness is. No one truly understands what exactly it is, although there's some great theories. So to flat out say that true human like AI is impossible without that knowledge is pretty presumptuous at best.
  4. Star Wars: The Last Jedi

    Yea this pretty much hits the nail on the head imo. There was a time when I really loved the ol' Star Wars films, but due to reasons, I fell off from them and returned about 10 or so years later when the new movies started coming out again. I rewatched the movies for the first time in almost 10 years as well, and honestly didn't find myself as invested in those movies now. To me, the new movies were just fun new versions of Star Wars. That does seem to be what JJ Abrams was aiming for. There certainly are questions from this, but I overall agree with this sentiment. @Gian-Reto: I'd highly recommend checking out Rogue One before passing judgement on all the films. In my opinion, that is still the best movie of all the new ones released. I'd be curious to hear your take.
  5. Star Wars: The Last Jedi

    Totally. It seems very common for most movies and stuff these days. I'm not sure if we can go as far as to say that it's entirely a cultural schism here, but rather that it's more about expectations. Primarily though I think that it's not really anything else but this. Most of the issues I've heard seem to center right around the idea that the SW canon is not being respected. I don't really blame them for not trying to keep the canon in its entirety. By the time they bought the brand, it was really really complicated. Making new SW movies would've been an impossible undertaking while taking into account the whole canon. Well maybe not entirely impossible, but it'd be tough given just how many things they'd have to take into account. Really though, my perspective is pretty different, since I didn't grow up around the time when the original trilogy was first released. I grew up when the prequels were being released and even those I didn't watch in entirety until later on. I did read some EU stuff and played some games, but at some point I stopped and just never continued. In that sense, my expectations are fairly different from other people's. Probably the case for the schism as well. That and I just prefer to suspend judgement until we've all seen the final movie in the trilogy. I mean, even Empire Strikes Back on its own would be rather tough to judge without seeing the conclusion. Though to be fair, the Return of the Jedi had there's that. The other thing I'd note is that there's no way they were going to satisfy all audiences or even a majority. The expanded universe had gone so far at this point for hardcore fans and in general given the wildly varying expectations, there were always going to be people who just weren't going to like the direction. **shrug**. We'll just have to see how Disney takes it from here. They're getting a ton of money out of this movie. Audiences are divided, but we've seen that even here on GDNet it's about 50/50. I'm more curious to see how the new trilogy stands up to time. !0-20 years from now, how will people remember these movies?
  6. Star Wars: The Last Jedi

    Hard to say how many people actually disliked the movie. IMO my explanation is that you either liked it or hated it, as reflected in the reviews. About 50% liked, and 50% hated. We're seeing the same on this site tbh. I think George Lucas directed the prequels himself, which is partially why they're so bad. That and he basically didn't listen to anyone at that point. The originals had a lot more input from other people. The backstory is sort of interesting, but so poorly executed it may as well be nonexistent. And imo the original trilogy was pretty simplistic. There's a bad guy empire and a good guy rebellion. We were never given more story than that. We are given hints of stuff before, hints that there's more that happened, and some idea that there wasn't always an evil oppressive empire. The new trilogy pretty much follows the same methodology with regards to backstory. Probably they're leaving that gap for movies/other means of selling more media (in fact, I believe there are some books that explain that backstory). It's a little lazy, but no more lazy than George Lucas was with his original trilogy. I just don't think that the original trilogy should be put onto some sort of pedestal. They had plenty of failings as well if we want to use that sort of lens to examine them. Well, here's the thing, not only was there never any real consistency in the old films, the canon, which had some consistency/explanations, as I understand it, were pretty much thrown out by Disney. Yea it isn't an excuse, but there's some good points in the other thread about this. Well did Finn kill civilians left and right? As I gather, that was his first mission, and he doesn't seem to be shooting civilians left and right. I'd have to watch TFA again and look closely. Is it lazy? I guess a bit. Take Darth Vader though, we don't learn more about him till the second film. Might be the third here. I can't say that there will certainly be explanations, maybe I'm wrong, and there's just going to be loose ends. Who knows. Yea I get the fandom issues here, but I'm just not a fan of enshrining the originals in gospel. I just feel like that TFJ and TFA don't have failings that are significantly worse than that of the original trilogy. Feel free to disagree, but that's just what I feel. So here's where we are just going to have to agree to disagree: I actually liked TFA as is. I liked TFJ as well. I'll probably like the third one, barring something really stupid. I'm not sure I agree entirely with the copy paste criticisms. TFA certainly had a problem with the entire Deathstar 3.0 thing, but beyond that, it was a fairly different movie, at least in my opinion. TFJ is wildly different from the originals. The original trilogy was more planned as I understand it. I don't mind there not being a plan. If they deliver, who cares? I'm personally not as invested in the originals as I used to be, so maybe that's why I feel differently. **Shrug**, let's see what happens next. There's no way Disney won't mint money from this series anyways.
  7. Star Wars: The Last Jedi

    @RivieraKid: I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying I hadn't read those particular articles about sexism etc.
  8. Star Wars: The Last Jedi

    /shrug, I heard reports, looks like rotten tomatoes is saying that's unlikely. Good chance it is unlikely in that case. I personally didn't hear much about sexism being why fans didn't like the new movies, but I never followed the media reporting on this much. EDIT: Not saying you're wrong, just saying that I personally have not yet read these reports. Did critics fairly review the movie? Again, I only read a couple of reviews. Some had clearly stated that this movie was likely to piss off a bunch of people (well, not exactly like that, it was more like not gonna be what you expect) while others really liked it. Those were the few that I read. So take what I saw about thiswith a grain of salt. There is one more movie. Even if they are making this up as they go, we can't really judge a trilogy until we've seen all 3 films. I get it that people are really disappointed with this movie, and that's fine, since it's an opinion, but that's the only reason I mention that there's one more movie is because one can't really judge a trilogy without all of the films.
  9. Star Wars: The Last Jedi

    It's been out on Bluray for a while man. Just want to point out one thing on that: some people have been trolling that site. Not sure how much it swayed the score, but there are reports of people voting repeatedly. I mean, Episodes 1 and 2 were pretty bad, like hard to get worse than bad. Episode 1 had Jar Jar, and some pretty stupid stuff in it. Episode 2 had that cringe-tastic love story...afaik and IMO neither TFA nor TFJ have that. Episode 3 was alright IMO, since it was the conclusion and all the dumber plot threads were minimal. IMO when it comes to all the negative backlash there's a couple of things I'd like to offer in return: 1): Star Wars has never ever had internal consistency for technology logic 2): Backstories haven't always been explained (Palpatine, for example, is an unknown in the original trilogy, and we don't know his origin until the prequels, and even then, we don't know much about where he's really from) 3): We've seen things like TFJ's supposed failings in all the films before 4): there's still one more movie, as @Anri. Things that seem like loopholes now may actually be explained in the last film. This is my opinion, and considering I don't think the originals are super special films, after rewatching them now, it's just that, an opinion
  10. Star Wars: The Last Jedi

    Yea, I felt like there was less direct similarities to the original trilogy. Although I overall liked The Force Awakens, the major detractor for me was how there was a Death Star 3.0 at the end of it. I actually liked the humor honestly, but that's just my opinion. Just as a note, everyone's entitled to his/her own opinion on the movie, I don't want to seem like I'm fighting with someone over this. Well, let me take a crack at some of your points. As I understand it, it seemed like the New Republic was in complete disarray and frightened after the First Order guys destroyed an entire system. It also seems that the bulk of the New Republic military was destroyed in the strike on the Hosnian system. It's in the Force Awakens actually: So it's not inconceivable that the Resistance, which was always a rag tag group of soldiers, and the New Republic, would be losing brutally to the First Order after a Pearl Harbor-esque attack. As I understood it, they weren't ruling the galaxy but were rather winning, a ton. No argument here. They definitely wanted a similar premise. Which isn't a problem in it of itself. As I understand it, there hasn't been a regime change. Maybe I missed something, but it seems more like that much of the remnants of the New Republic are frightened as hell. I'm with @ChaosEngine here, it's not that odd that she wouldn't necessarily broadcast her plans to everyone, especially a guy who doesn't seem to like following orders. In most military structures, the expectation is to follow orders, not necessarily to be informed of the reason behind those orders. Moreover, the crew does indeed mutiny, or at least, some of it does. Some folks do relive her of her command for precisely this reason. Furthermore, maybe she's just straight up incompetent? A big theme in the movie is failure. All she needed to do was say there is a plan in place to escape them. Trust me. But she doesn't, and it absolutely costs her and the Resistance, since not enough of the crew trust her. Not sure I can agree here, especially because there's a lot that hasn't really been established yet. There's more to come in the next movie that I think is being hinted at here. I did like Revenge of the Sith, but I'd say that this movie is still ahead of Revenge of the Sith, mainly because it lacks the cringey romance of Anakin and Padme. Just my opinions though. I think the main issue for many people in the force awakens at least was that they went with creating another new kind of Death Star that needed destroying rather than something at least visually different. This, IMO, seemed a bit lazy. I still liked TFA, but this one thing, if only they could fix it, would've been nice. I do agree that the pacing of the movie slowed down in the middle act, but I still enjoyed it. It might've seemed tacked on, but again, there is another movie, where I'm hoping it develops more. I wish Finn developed more as a character though. He didn't seem to have as much development as Rey. Was a little disappointed by that. The Leia force survival was a little odd. Not necessarily "it shouldn't be here! She should've died!", just oddly executed. They could've gone for a different visual vibe. I plan on watching the movie a second time, so let's see if my opinion stays the same on this.
  11. Star Wars: The Last Jedi

    I saw the Last Jedi last night and I thought it was a great movie, probably the best one yet out of the new films. It was a fun movie that took Star Wars into new directions IMO. Now I do understand that it seems this movie was particularly divisive amongst fans. So, that being said, what is your opinion, fellow GDNetters?
  12. Rip internet 2017-12-14

    Well, it's official. Net neutrality rules have been repealed. Now we see what happens. There are people who are right now suing the FCC. So it begins.
  13. Rip internet 2017-12-14

    I agree with you but once a investor sees that there is a huge customer base upset with how things work, they will feel it's safe to move in. Yes, precisely. They do have competitors who just couldn't get a hold in that territory, if they throttle there networks and there competitors don't it could be the deciding factor. People like water and electricity always take the path of least resistance, after all this is why game theory even exists. Throttling is a double edged sword, it will provide the companies with means to make more money at the cost of customer satisfaction. I don't entirely disagree, I just believe that while it's possible, it's just not likely that competition will arise in the face of throttling etc. The ISP business simply requires too much upfront capital, something that most businesses and most investors wouldn't be willing to put money into too easily unless they could see a good RoI. Plus there's just the fact that it takes years to build out networks. That's before we even get into the notion of peering with other ISPs, BGP, etc. In short, it's not as simple as that really. There is a reason why similar services, like telephones etc. are regulated as utilities and it's primarily because they do behave as utilities do.
  14. Rip internet 2017-12-14

    Absolutely. I don't disagree with the basics of this. That said, there are some caveats. I'm assuming you're American, based on this and previous threads. What part of America do you live in? I'm not sure if you knew this, but some parts of the US only have one ISP. And they have very different treatment from places where there is competition. There are data caps in those plans for those areas, and the customers are charged for any usage above those data caps. The only reason ISPs do this is because they know that the customers have no choice but to buy Internet from them in those areas. Typically, yes, stupid things like throttling, etc. would easily cause competition to come in and blow the market ruler away. But there are cases where a thing known as a natural monopoly can exist. It's pretty much what it sounds like: the service/product in question is such that it favors only one or two companies/organizations providing it.This is typically due to high fixed costs, high barrier to entry, high initial investment, etc. The biggest example given of a natural monopoly is usually that of utilities. Water and electricity, for example. You can't have multiple electricity companies compete in one market for a particular area because of how impossible that sounds to implement in practice. Imagine having tons of electrical lines running around. The major reason is typically because of the high barrier to entry. Setting up an electrical grid is expensive. Once it's already set up, adding more customers is easy. It lends itself to being a natural monopoly. ISPs are very very similar and can/should be considered natural monopolies. There's a pretty high barrier to entry for becoming an ISP, since one needs to set up the internet infrastructure to service people. It's pretty easy for bigger companies to basically maintain market control in most regions. It's not that innovation is impossible, it's just tough and unlikely in this scenario. It certainly can happen, especially if someone comes up with an entirely new and novel way of reaching customers. The scenarios are much more limited in this case, however. ISPs are very similar to utilities and should be regulated as such. This isn't to say that ISPs will suddenly go nuts once net neutrality is repealed. However, the incentives come into place for small incremental changes over time that nobody will notice. Or even bigger changes in certain areas. That's my major concern with the repeal of net neutrality. Again, let's see what happens. This doesn't necessarily need to all happen.
  15. Rip internet 2017-12-14

    There's a good chance that net neutrality will be repealed. BUT, to be fair, I thought the same about Obamacare, and that Roy Moore would win as well. Neither of those happened, as you can see. So it's entirely possible net neutrality might not be repealed. I'm not that optimistic on net neutrality not being repealed, but let's see what happens.In any case, there are means of challenging it. The courts are one likely venue. And as @iedoc mentioned, this probably won't be a permanent thing if it passes. Even if enough Republicans are behind it, there's a pretty good chance they won't control Congress in 2018. As it stands, they are already in a very tenuous position. Congress can easily make changes in this regard if the FCC won't. It's not so much that Internet didn't exist before Net Neutrality, but rather that major ISPs that have a near monopoly on the business in some areas, can and will try to exploit this. How far it'll go, no one knows. The fact is that there will be a major backlash if ISPs try anything too stupid, but it can get pretty bad if we aren't careful. IMO it's the same as massive deregulation of banking: it's a bad idea and will cause problems since we trust certain people to be 'responsible' In short, let's see what happens. My guess is it'll be temporary if repealed.