Reading this feels like reading those famous math textbooks, which are for people who are already well-versed in the field yet kept being shoved into undergraduate courses.
Brickardo
joined 2 years ago
Not only that, live service titles are absolutely tone deaf when it comes to respecting the effort of their players.
It doesn't stop Steve from being right with his statement, though, but his understanding of what a live service game's monetization model should be has shown to be two or three parallel universes ahead of what the "triple A" projects usually do.
Hell, paying real money can only skip you through the first dozens of hours of the tutorial. After that, paying effectively only allows you to get cosmetic options.
Let's agree to disagree then. An LLM has no notion of semantics, it's just outputting the most likely word to follow up to what it's already written and the user's input.
On the contrary, expert systems from back in the 90s for, say, predicting the atomic structure of an element, work like a human brain on steroids. It features an arbitrary large search tree that the software knows how to iterarively prune according to a well known set of chemical rules. We do the same when analyzing a set of options.
Debugging "current" AI models, on the other hand, is impossible because all we're doing is prescripting a composition of functions and forcing it to minimize a loss function. That's all we're doing. How can you currently tell that a certain model is going to work? Unless the mathematical theory ever catches up with the technology, we'll never know until we execute the code.
It's closed source, so no way in hell
Slightly unrelated but the quality of the screen capture is crisp wtf