BG3 vibes anyone?

Well with an average in the 80s on metacritic one would assume it’s a very decent game. But user reviews tend to be a lot harsher indeed.

Thanks for the review. Disappointing to be sure. I was hoping to play it at some point and that it wouldn’t suck as much as people say it does. Or that they would turn it around in time.

Sometimes I wonder whether Starfield truly deserves all the bad publicity or whether people are also still upset because it became an Xbox exclusive and that is clouding their judgement. I know it does affect me for one. I got a ps5 for gaming and I’m automatically much less interested in anything that isn’t on the platform. And I was of course very disappointed when Microsoft outright bought all these huge IPs and made them exclusive to Xbox.

I’m waiting for the ultimate edition that will include everything here

This looks more like a scythe that doubles as a weapon to me

This thread is like a lesson in the importance of x and y axes range in time series plots

There’s a movie about that. Well, it’s about high-tech incubator eggs that promise relief from the toils of pregnancy so mothers can go on working (so they can afford said proprietary incubator eggs). Not a great movie, but it was interesting. Don’t remember the title unfortunately.

Granted, our tendency towards anthropomorphism is near ubiquitous. But it would be disingenuous to claim that it does not play out in very specific and very important ways in how we speak and think about LLMs, given that they are capable of producing very convincing imitations of human behavior. And as such also produce a very convincing impression of agency. As if they actually do decide things. Very much unlike dice.

The AI did not “decide” anything. It has no will. And no understanding of the consequences of any particular “decision”. But I guess “probabilistic model produces erroneous output” wouldn’t get as many views. The same point could still be made about not placing too much trust on the output of such models. Let’s stop supporting this weird anthropomorphizing of LLMs. In fact we should probably become much more discerning in using the term “AI”, because it alludes to a general intelligence akin to human intelligence with all the paraphernalia of humanity: consciousness, will, emotions, morality, sociality, duplicity, etc.

Ok makes sense. Thanks.

Why is that?

When it comes to cosmetics I thought it’s the other way around because men who will buy cosmetics are generally higher earners or something like that, so they’re generally willing to pay more.

Nice but paywalled for me

You know what, we don’t need to be always on the same page. Sure, it’s good when we are, but we don’t need to echo each other’s views and that’s ok :) Cheers

Hmm well if you don’t mind a bit of unsolicited advice, I would say that (from the frustrations you express) maybe you, like most of us, enter discussions online with a mind to convince others of the absolute truth of what you believe in. It is actually more productive to listen to them, then ask why they feel the way they do about certain topics, and then try to see if you can find common ground with them. Only then can you perhaps influence their views a little. But if you are earnest about the exchange, you must allow them to influence you too.

I know that’s hard, I fail often myself and become frustrated.

Of course there are conspiracy theories and falsehoods that are absolutely bonkers and it stymies me too why some people will gobble it all up, but a wise person is never too sure of their own truths either. Funny thing is we are all biased one way or another, we just tend to be blind to our own biases. Of course some truths are supported by more evidence than others, but especially when it comes to politics it is less about the absolute truth of a matter than it is about adopting a particular perspective. No single perspective is more valid than others inherently. It is all just ways of looking at things. Of course one can try and come up with objective criteria, but that too is quite hard.

I am aware, and it’s good you brought this up. All sides are gullible, but some perhaps more than others. Although, the very study you posted a link to states clearly that other studies have had mixed results. Are you posting this one because, as a political scientist, you know the field and studies referenced and can assert with confidence acquired through disciplined study that this work provides better proof that conservatives are indeed more gullible (where other studies failed), or are you posting it because it appears to confirm your a priori views of conservatives?

Apart from the actual truth of the matter, I made my comment above because I believe that looking down on conservative concerns and viewpoints - something that is naturally aided by any perceptions of conservatives as gullible simpletons - has not served liberals well. In fact, it’s something that right wing populists have been able to exploit quite well to gain the sympathy and ultimately the vote of large swathes of said simpletons.

People are gullible, not just right-wingers. You’re just more likely to perceive the other side as gullible and not notice the blind spots of your own. And well, we are living in a moment in history of a surge in right wing populism, which puts that side’s gullibility in full frontal display.

I call BS. I found the Darjeeling Limited and the Life Aquatic to be the most likable.

It was a more optimistic time, perhaps a more naive time depending on your perspective. A time when most people felt that crowds were wise and the truth would surface spontaneously. Where the internet would help us spread knowledge and democracy and none of the bad things. Where conspiracy theories, disinformation, outright hatred and bigotry were considered fringe phenomena that could be kept at bay. When people would point to 4chan as the worst the internet had to offer, if they even knew about it. Where politicians and their voters could argue passionately, without necessarily feeling that other side are “extremists” or “fascists” who would literally “destroy our country” if they win an election.

The world is cracking at the seams lately and this leads more people to wanna put the brakes on the internet. Liberals especially, witnessing with horror the surge of the far right and attributing it in part to the internet’s ultimate ability to amplify anything, any voice, any shitty little take, no matter how extreme, how misinformed, or bigoted. Most likely misinformed and bigoted with someone like Musk at the helm, the thinking goes. In short, liberals have shifted from the exuberant naïveté of the past to protection mode, trying to stem the tide of right wing populism and perhaps ultimately fascism. And thus will come off as overbearing censors to anyone who doesn’t understand why they do what they do or is still optimistic that a lack of censorship will only lead to good things.

Freedom only works with a social contract in place, some consensus, some ground truths about the world that we can all agree on. Or that a solid, relatively stable majority at least can agree on. When that starts to break down, freedom to say and do whatever you want online may in fact bring the downfall sooner by stoking the fires of division. Of course the likes of Musk probably do think that they are fighting the good fight and are championing free speech, but increasingly he seems to be shifting to the right politically, and rather fighting for his presumed right to shape the world in his image and grow his business empire unchecked, if anything, and not some ideal of freedom and democracy. The likes of him, businessmen with nearly unchecked power and ultimately more concern for their business and personal aspirations than democracy, are probably going to become a bigger threat to our freedoms than the government of Australia. Maybe. Probably.

I personally do think that liberals have often gone overboard in their speech policing zeal, but on the other hand understand why they do what they do. Policing the internet seems like a much easier alternative than actually addressing all the major, sometimes seemingly existential socioeconomic challenges liberal democracies face today. The latter would deprive right wing populists and extremists of much of their influence, but is of course way, way harder than policing speech.