• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2942 Excellent

1 Follower

About mikeman

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Interests
  1. Does violence stem from video games

    While I like many of the things Pop Culture Detective does, at the end of the day many of the things he claims are assertions that may satisfy his intuitions(or mine even) or verified things he's read, but are not backed up by any significant amount of data. For example, he has argued that violent media affect the culture around guns - and when asked to provide evidence about it, he fell back to a (kind of indignant) "are you denying media affects culture?!". This...is not how logic works though. To make it more clear, in the "hard" sciences, when a scientist claims that a specific field F affects a specific particle P in specific X way, and challenged to provide evidence for this claim, their retort can't be "so are you denying fields affect particles?!". It's easy to see how such a retort would be laughable. It's the kind of sloppy thinking that would be entirely unacceptable in "hard" sciences, yet seems to be very common in the "soft" social sciences, at least amongst the various pundits on social media, TV, etc. In reality, if we want to verify that claim, we would have to conduct a research about what opinions people hold regarding say, gun control, and if we indeed saw a correlation between playing military shooters and the answers people give, we could hypothesize they have some causal link. If we didn't see any correlation, then we would have to abandon our hypothesis. I would seriously like to see a study like that, to determine if playing military shooters makes you have different opinions about gun control, or aggressive wars, etc. It could even affect my choice of currently working in a company that makes military shooters. The problem is that it's very common for social commenters(especially the social media pundits) to engage in a kind of entirely "closed" system of thought, which is basically unfalsifiable - no amount of evidence will make them abandon it; they will patch their theories up in various ways in order to fit the data, and at the very least they will claim that there's no clear causal link but the whole thing just "normalizes" or "amplifies" existing behaviour and attitudes - but in what way? to what extent? How can we quantify that to see if it actually happens? In the end it seems they're merely arguing that because it seems intuitive and logical for them, based on their own preconceptions, ideas, things they've read... but that's not exactly how we determine if something is false or true.
  2. Nobody Wants A Cybergod?

    Bytetroll, you're not paying attention. He's not a Devry gradutate, he just *hates* Devry graduates. They're taking all his jerbs.
  3. Nobody Wants A Cybergod?

    >>What do I have to do to finally be seen as at least the equal of someone with almost no experience, and even less knowledge? Build a portfolio, apply for jobs and go to interviews, like all the rest of the people do. Btw, I again remind you that, when you were talking about your sports mod and how good you are at designing those kind of games, I offered you my services as a programmer in order to make a prototype together(I was interested in making a sports game myself back then). Sure, we weren't going to make an AAA sports game, but we would have an awesome(if your word was true) playable prototype that we both could showcase. You declined, because your grand designs can only be made with multi-million teams and anything else is beneath you. So I went on my way, worked on my indie game, now have a job at EA DICE. Not as a designer, as a programmer, but I work with designers every day, making the tools they use to make AAA multi-million games. See, you *could* have a connection there today, but you don't accept anything less than people bowing down to you and handing you 100 million. So there's that too.
  4. Nobody Wants A Cybergod?

    But we already know what the "rules" of nature are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model I mean, we know it's not the complete "theory of everything" and tbh I'm not sure if even a classical model of the universe is computable, but that's what we have. Kavik even mentioning "simulating things in sub-atomic scale" which seems like another totally bizarre thing to say - AFAIK scientists at CERN run particle simulations all the time, is he saying this "Rube" things is somehow better than what they use? Or...what? Anyway, after all this time, we have absolutely no idea what this "Rube" *is* and what it *does*, apart that is super-duper awesome but Kavig Kang can't tell us because we'll steal it. Kavig Kang, assumine we all concede you have something great in your your hands, but you can't reveal what it is...the question is, what do you seek from this community of mostly hobbyists othan that "congratulations, man!" ? What do you want us to *do* in order for Rube not to be buried with you or something? We certainly can't spread the word about it; we don't know what it is.
  5. Nobody Wants A Cybergod?

    I may be way off here too, but from what I read, impulse charts, or impulse-based turn system is a way to implement fast-moving ships with short-range weapons, overcoming the limitation of hex-based turn-based gameplay. Like, in a traditionally turn-based system, you would roll the speed of your ship, then you would move your ship as many hexes as the dice rolled. The problem is that the ship isn't supposed to teleport, in its way to its final destination it could be in the range of another ship that could fire upon it, but since the whole thing happens in one step, you simply can't simulate that this way. So what SFB does is : Break the game turn into sub-steps(32 maximum). Each player rolls the dice simultaneously, rolling a speed of 1-32. So you have 32 sub-steps(actually, I would guess you would really have as much sub-steps as the maximum speed rolled) inside the turn and the impulse chart determines which ships can move(by only 1 hex I assume) each impulse. I'm guessing if you rolled 1 you can only move 1 substep out of 32, if you rolled rolled 16 you can move only half the substeps, with 32 you can move during all substeps. Also guessing that this restrictions are only for movement - "slow" ships can still fire their weapons each substep. It's a clever way to overcome the limitation of turn-based system and a map divided into limited hexes, although I imagine it takes a long time to complete a turn this way. In any case, it seems Kavik Kang claims he has invented a uber-version of it that can deal with any conceivable scenario, so I'm guessing it's only for turn-based games. Still not sure about the whole "cybergod" thing, but since he refuses to divulge any more info, let's just accept it's possible he has come up with something good - the question is what he expects from the community.
  6. Nobody Wants A Cybergod?

    Well yeah, that's the point, I don't think anybody here is arguing that we lack the "language" to implement any behaviour we want into a game's entities. It's just a matter of figuring out what kind of rules we want to implement, and actually doing it. I mean, at least Kavig Kang *has* given a concrete example, but that only made things more confusing. ---------------------- For example, if the player tells two different ships to fire missiles at a single target both ships won't just fire missiles at the same time. The “AI” would determine, based on the known movement plots of the firing ships and target, when each ship needed to launch the missiles for them to arrive at the target at the same time. And then that would be made to happen through the impulses with their embedded sequence of play. And now you can imagine a captain saying “Wait for it... One more second... Fire!” in this battle when only one of the ships launch at the beginning of Deadlock's “time bar turn”, and the closer one delays until the timing will be right. Baby Rube “planning the future” to make Deadlock appear to be “more realistic”. “It's a Kind of Magic”;-) ---------------------- Cool I guess, but, like others have said, that's...just programming? I'm half a mind at this point that Kavik Kang, whenever he sees a game lacking an "X" behaviour he considers should be in the game, he thinks the designers were literally unable to describe this behaviour. I actually think, like I said, he re-created in his mind the concept of algorithms and general-purpose programming, the basic concept of game loop and/or input-processing-output and thinks it's something new. I mean, I am really trying to decipher his walls of text, but he uses weird expressions to describe familiar concepts: - "Treadmill of time" : Okay, so the game world updates its state in discrete time steps? That's it? That's what every game does. - "Functioning simulation of God" : Joking aside, as "God" we could probably describe an entity that has perfect knowledge about the current state of every component of the world and can perfectly predict its future state(omniscience), and also can change the state of any component at will(omnipotence). For our own physical universe, that would be the God(s) of monotheistic religions. For a virtual universe, a game that is, ...that's just the game engine, the program itself. So again, what are we talking about here? Of course, I could be wrong, but he has to give us at least one example of an actual problem that "Rube" solves. in what way it makes existing games "better". So far the most he has given is "Deadlock's missiles don't do this thing" and naturally the response was "okay...but we could program them to do it"? Does "Rube" generates the rules on its own or something? And based on what?
  7. Nobody Wants A Cybergod?

    -------------- Assuming a computer existed that could handle it, which I doubt is the case right now, and the many decades it would take just to create the content, my Rube can handle everything that exists in reality simultaneously. It is an “artificial universe” that, assuming an “Ultimate Infinity Rube” (where all of Rube's components have infinite capacity), could re-recreate the entire planet Earth and everything on it in exacting detail. -------------- Assuming a computer existed that could handle it, *any* programming language could do that. You just need to write the correct instructions. I really think, like Scouting Ninja said, you've re-"discovered" what one can do with general-purpose programming, and you're so overwhelmed by it because you're unaware that...we've already been doing it. Deadlock's missiles behaving "dumb"(if they do, I'm taking your word for it) isn't because its designers lack the language to describe a "smart" behaviour. It's all just scripting. Write a script that implements a missile with finite instead of infinite fuel, and it happens. Basically, with any turing-complete programming language you can implement any set of rules you can think of. Yeah...it *is* "kind of magic"...but we already know it? Now, I *assume* what you're getting at(it's really hard to get through all the walls of text) is : Okay we wrote a new script that now implement the missiles with finite fuel, so if you fire a missile after a ship that is accelerating away from you, it will not reach it. But that doesn't automagically alter the behaviour of the pilots - they are still firing missiles the "old" way. Two solutions are : 1) Update the pilot logic script, so it takes into account now that missiles have finite fuel - calculate before firing if the missile can actually make a hit before running out of fuel. This is an ad-hoc solution, each time you add a new "behaviour" like "finite fuel", you must update the pilot AI too. 2) Have a more general-purpose solution. The pilot AI simulates internally the trajectory of the missile, up until some time T. Predict the future, that is. In intervals, the pilot asks "what if I launch a missile now"? The game engine can answer that question by creating a "parallel" simulation where the missile is launched, and examine what happens. If the simulation shows the missile launch will result in good hit, then the pilot actually does launch it(or has some % chance of launching it, if we want the pilot not to always be correct). This is more general-purpose, because, if implemented correctly, you don't need to update the pilot AI each time you alter the behaviour of the missiles - the hypothetical/parallel simulation the game runs in order to ask the question "if I launch the missile now, what will happen to it" takes into account whatever missile behaviour you have implemented - heat seeking, finite fuel, electronic warfare, whatever. The downside is, of course, it's usually more performance-intensive to do, especially when you consider all the permutation of decisions you need to make. This is indeed as if each pilot is asking an omniscient "god" - "if I launch a missile now, will it result in a good hit" and this "god"(the game engine that is) creates a parallel world where the missile is fired, simulates it up until X time, and comes up with an answer. The only thing the game can't know is the human player's reaction - it can only guess at what are the most probable. I'm *guessing* this is what your magical "Rube" is supposed to do, but again it's very hard to decipher your walls of text, and you're not being very specific anyway. ------------ I am already aware of all of that Scouting Ninja, and I play modern games all the time. You are speaking Avalon Hill too me, that's first generation stuff. 70 years old from my perspective ------------ No, he's demonstrating what algorithms are. So, you know. About 2500 years from our perspective.
  8. Nobody Wants A Cybergod?

    I know, right? At least he could learn the difference between "to" and "too". Also, he still *hates* Devry, man.
  9. Nobody Wants A Cybergod?

    Are you guys *still* talking about videogames? He didn't invent a new way to do melee combat,, for crying out loud, he invented Cybergod. Kavik Kang, my dude, seriously : STOCK MARKET.
  10. Nobody Wants A Cybergod?

    Use Rube to predict stock market, make billions of dollars, then hire dumb programmers&artists to make your games? I mean...I'm not even joking here? That's literally the best advice for someone that invented God.
  11. AI will lead to the death of capitalism?

    >>For most people this means death, which is no life at all. >>Believe me when you reach the point where dinner is some tea and a day old bread, you understand very well why people work. >>At the moment not working means dying. Maybe AI will change that, I don't think it will. True. It depends where you live and what your family conditions are. For most people in the world, no wage means death, not only for you but for several people that depend on you. For most people in the Western world, it means falling back to whatever security net is in place - probably not literally starving to death, but an awful life, possibly homelessness. For me, with working class parents but that do own their own home, with no debts, pensions, are mostly healthy, and actually care about me(a lot of lucky stars aligned here, that is), it means the luxury of having a room to crush and 3 meals per day while I try to find another job. Which is a tremendous privilege. The money I have in the bank probably suffice for 6 months or something, but I never experienced the crippling anxiety of "if I lose this job, I will be literally out in the streets" because I know that, if things go really south here in Sweden, I always have my childhood room to wait for me in Greece. Heck, I took the "risk" of leaving a good gig in Prague and hopping to Sweden because I knew I had the safety net of my parent home. Of course, for others from even more well-off families, things are even better. Hey, it's capitalism. We'll all free, but some are more free than others.
  12. Trump and Russia (take 2)

  13. AI will lead to the death of capitalism?

    You can't get rich that way, in modern society, just by your own labor. That's how artisans worked 3 centuries ago, before industrialization. How much of this "fix them up" can you do, by your own, even if worked 24/7? Just how many used cars can you fix in a day? You need to hire people to do the "fix them up" thing, and of course you'll only get rich if you don't share the profits with them equally. Be a boss, in other words. Now why people would do that(come work for you, that is) if their livelihood was guaranteed by the abundant wealth that would be created by automation(assuming the "positive" scenario plays out)? They are already having a good enough life, free to pursuit their own passions, productive or not, so they're also free not to work for you unless you pay them handsomely or make them partners. You won't have much leverage to keep the wages down in order to maximize profits any more. Right now, I am "free" to choose not to work as a wage earner, assuming I'm willing to fall back to whatever life "no wage" means. For most people, this life is pretty bad, unless you have wealthy parents or accumulated enough wealth on your own. But if the "positive scenario" plays out, even in the moderate case of guaranteed healthcare + basic income, this life becomes pretty good. Now why would I want to let myself be employed by a boss that refuses to split the profits equally? That would be stupid. I would still be willing to work, sure, but I would hold on for a job which satisfies me and where I am not exploited. I'm not in the business of making other people rich any more, in other words. That is, of course, assuming you can even do the "fix em up" better than the machines, and also that there are enough people left with jobs that the machines can't do, so they have money to buy what you're selling. Which is I guess what we're talking about here. It depends on what "scenario" plays out. In the "nightmare" scenario, forget about this bootstrapping fellow that makes a fortune by buying used cars or TVs, "fixes them up", sells them for profit, hires other people, grows his business, etc etc. If that venture is truly profitable, the "big fellows" that own the machines will have the entire market. There is no room for that "little fellow" at all. Well, maybe getting hired greasing the machines or something, assuming there's not a greasing machine that does that better than him too. In this case, we have capitalism, sure, except it's kind of a monstrous version of it, and not much real "freedom" to be had in this place. OTOH, in the positive scenario, where the abundant wealth created by the machines is divided more fairly(that probably means machines are public property) and everyone has a good life, free to pursuit their own creative endeavours(art, research, science, etc), that little bootstrapping fellow is again in a tough place : Not only what he does is probably done better by the public-sector machines already, but he won't really be able to hire employees and grow his business, since those employees have no reason to go work for him. Who in their right minds work for someone else's profits if they don't have to?
  14. AI will lead to the death of capitalism?

    >>Capitalism is what happens when people are allowed to trade resources and services freely and it's >>how civilisations have been running themselves the past thousands of years. Really? Thousands of years? Slaves and serfs were free to trade resources and services as they wished? Are we talking about the history of the same planet here? Most people would place the dawn of capitalism between the 13rd-16th century; depends on your definition and feudalism dissolved in stages and not overnight, so the 2 systems co-existed for quite some time(and still do in some places), but capitalism certainly isn't something that existed since humans have existed. Unless of course by "capitalism" you mean "people produce and consume things", in which case yes, it has existed once we moved beyond hunter-gatherer society, but it's not what most people mean by it. In feudal societies people still produced and consumed things, but under a different framework and mode than capitalism. Let alone slave society. I mean, if we're going to argue that the Roman Empire or Medieval Europe were...capitalists societies, I think we've stretched the term so much as to simply mean "things are produced, traded and consumed". In which case, I guess...yeah, Julius Ceasar and Genghis Khan were...capitalists. Anyway, I guess it depends on what "school of thought" you belong to, and if you consider as "capitalism" any society in which trade is existent, even if it's not the primary source of wealth, then capitalism obviously stretches back to the paleolithic era. But in that cases we're just using the same word to describe different things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism >> In a post-scarcity world there is no need for it, but we are millennia away from the technology(ies) that will allow it, if it's even possible. We are not talking about the Star Trek replicator here, so I don't think we are "millennia away from it". It's not a magic machine that prints anything we desire that we're talking about here, simply large-scale automation. We're pretty much very close to being able to automate most of the work needed to at least satisfy the most basic needs, such as food, clothing and housing. We're certainly not millenia away from being able to completely automate the construction of things such as houses, roads, cars, ships, etc - I'd say we're at most a few decades. Anyway, some relevant news... https://thenextweb.com/artificial-intelligence/2017/07/31/teamsters-convince-congress-to-block-driverless-trucks/#.tnw_2qcnmQeV
  15. AI will lead to the death of capitalism?

    See, that's the core of the issue here. Even if our technological tools do make possible a society where everyone(or at least most) is prosperous, living in peace, free to pursue their own interests and having a good life, without having money and more importantly power concentrated into the hands of few, it doesn't necessarily means it's going to happen(the worst thing is not income inequality - if everyone has enough, do we really care if some have private jets? Personally I don't care about that a bit. But I do care about the immense power that money affords them). Not *everyone's* life will be improved in this society, assuming it's even possible. The proverbial "1%" or even 10%, pretty much everyone that is above middle class, will have objectively "worse" lives, have at least some of their privileges taken away. And experience shows us they're not going to give them up voluntarily(at least most of them). And let's not talk about the many people, especially in the US, that are not even part of the 1%, or even the 10%, or even the 20%, they are at the very bottom but still cling to the dream of making it to the 1%. They are *really* commited to it. They don't want a more fair world, where their place would be improved, because that would rob them of them imaginary future billions. And they will fight for them as if they're actually real. Technology alone isn't enough to determine if we'll get the "nightmare" scenario or the "utopia" scenario or whatever in between. Humans are also political beings on top of making cool inventions; this will play a role in which future we get. My prediction is this : Capitalism has changed a lot during its history. It has made a lot of concessions to the working people(speaking about the Western countries mostly, countries in the Third World/Global South are something else entirely), the most important of those being the welfare state and universal suffrage. Not out of mercy of course, but it's not really in its interest to have hordes of starving people in the streets. It gives a little, it adapts, in order to survive. Its final and last concession will probably be the "Universal Basic Income". Depends how it's implemented(will we have a UBI on top of guaranteed universal healthcare, for example?), but it will probably happen. This will cause capitalism to yet again another take a very different form. I don't predict it has any more room to change again after that. The next change, if we assume we will have another change, will be something else altogether. And of course one other major change that will need to happen is that, whatever system we have, needs to be much more ecologically sustainable.