• Advertisement

mikeman

Member
  • Content count

    4949
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2946 Excellent

1 Follower

About mikeman

Personal Information

  • Interests
    Art
  1. There are many forms of socialism - the common factor is basically that the "means of production"(in this case, robots) are collectively and not privately owned, and goods are produced for use and not for profit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_for_use (there's a section in there - "Cybernetics" - that deals with the option of utilizing computers to assist in the allocation of resources). This thread was started, I think, on the premise that private ownership(of the means of production of wealth again, not personal possessions like your Xbox, car and toothbrush) will start to not make much sense in the case most jobs can be automated, so I just naturally presented the alternative. However, I really don't think the thing will be ever as simple as "okay we have robots now, let's do Star Trek/full luxury automated communism" - for starters, let's not forget that not every country is as technologically as advanced as USA or Western countries in general. I also got a feeling that, even if it was proven without a doubt that socialism(again - public ownership of the means of production and production for use and not profit) can handle mass automation better than capitalism, there are many many people that will shout "Better Dead than Red" and go down proudly with their Atlas Shrugged copies on hand as everything else collapses.(if we assume the current system collapses, which is the premise of the thread).
  2. *mikeman drops the S-word and leaves. :D
  3. Star Wars: The Last Jedi

    Damn...this is right on spot
  4. Why A.I is impossible

    Well, as long as we're talking about it... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
  5. Star Wars: The Last Jedi

    @Gian-Reto: Well, the way I see it is...in the new trilogy, they wanted to have a story arc about a storm trooper that defects and joins the Rebellion. Which, in itself, is a pretty interesting thing. I'll agree that, since all we have ever seen of storm troopers are them being faceless brainwashed goons, suddenly having one of them remove his helmet and almost instantly emerge as a full-blown human being with a heart of gold and a desire to join the Resistance seems out of the blue. But this is a 2-hour movie - how much time can you spend on this? But It's true it could have been handled significantly better - Like, you said, Finn still escapes out of necessity, but initially distrusts Poe&Rey and the whole Resistance thing, wrestles with guilt over his "traitor" status, just wants to run away and be safe(something that does happen in TFA) - generally probably an arc that would end with him only very slowly warming up to the Resistance and formally joining it at the end of TLJ. But, like I said, it's Star Wars - when has the writing of those movies ever been anything more than "good heroes fight evil space nazis"?
  6. Why A.I is impossible

    Because the "link" can be only be established by God. He was the one that breathed life into Adam after all. He (presumably) does the same for every fetus that is formed. Humans can't do it (well, unless they build the robot suit and then they pray for God to infuse it with a soul, and He actually listens). Otherwise, they can't wield God's breath, or the Flame Imperishable, or however else you wanna call it. I'm not sure why this thread is going on - a dude claims "AI is impossible because AI is impossible". Last I checked, you don't really have to do much to dismiss circular reasoning.
  7. Star Wars: The Last Jedi

    IIRC, it was Finn's very first combat mission. In the heat of the battle, he just couldn't bring himself to kill innocent people, and that exposed him to both Kylo Ren and Phasma that immediately knew something was "off" with him. I seem to recall that after the mission Phasma was ordered to bring him for reevalution or "reconditioning" or something like that. He realized he was walking on very thin ice from then on, and grabbed the opportunity to escape with Poe. Logically, we must assume he already was a good person and had a mental conflict before the movie's events start. But it's not something he was planning for a long time - he went into his first combat, he fucked up before his superiors(one of whom is a mind-reader), he realized that after that he was screwed, so he jumped on the chance to escape with Poe. It's enough info for me...certainly it leaves some questions(is he really the only storm trooper to have such moral conflicts in the history of the Empire/First Order? Why only him?) and indeed it would be interesting to have a stand-alone movie about that.
  8. Star Wars: The Last Jedi

    [Spoiler Warnings] I generally get the feeling that there is a positive correlation between how much the original trilogy meant to you, and how much you "hated" TFA and mostly TLJ. With the risk of sounding a bit petty, the extreme version of that is a portion of hardcore fans(that must be close or even over 40 at this time) that expected the new trilogy to emotionally sustain them for the next 30 years, like the old one did - this of course won't happen, and they're very, very pissed off. Personally, I wasn't ever into Star Wars at all, so I was able to enjoy the new movies, as watchable, entertaining flicks, and that's pretty much it. I can see why many old fans can be angry with , for instance, what they did with Luke's character - the most optimistic, kind-hearted character in the whole saga, the one that saw the good in the 2nd most evil guy in the universe, turning into a bitter, reclusive quitter that almost killed his nephew because he kinda sense he maybe had some bad tendencies. But as I said, the original trilogy and characters never really meant anything special for me(and obviously neither did the prequels), so I pretty much didn't care - and as such, I just enjoyed the movie for what it was, and will probably forget about it until the next one comes out.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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?
  15. 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.
  • Advertisement