

I don’t disagree with your conclusion, but I think part of why it sucks now is all the Search Engine Optimization, of people trying to game Google into showing you their website, and only necessarily the one most pertinent to your search
I don’t disagree with your conclusion, but I think part of why it sucks now is all the Search Engine Optimization, of people trying to game Google into showing you their website, and only necessarily the one most pertinent to your search
I’m always reminded of https://youtu.be/ZI0w_pwZY3E for Skype
For me, the huge value-add of Discord is for gaming (and is what Discord was created for). In college, my friends and I were originally using Skype calls when we’d play League together, but it was super annoying; essentially in order to not have to create a new call and add everyone who happened to be playing every time we just had one giant call with everyone we’d “redial” when playing. The downside is that if you were on Skype but not part of the game (in class or something) you’d get the Skype call invitation and have to decline it.
Switching to Discord was fantastic. We’d just have a persistent voice channel for different games, and you could chill in there to indicate it’s what you were playing or wanted to play, and if someone wanted to join they just jump on the call. It was also nice for organizing our text chats into different subjects (using different text channels), so if you were trying to ask if anyone had any advice for a certain class, you wouldn’t have your messages drowned out by people talking about news about a upcoming game. We just have a “games” text channels and a “classes” text channels and a “weekend plans” text channel, etc. This became particularly important as the server grew from friends to friends of friends and would’ve been overwhelming to have everyone stuck in one chat.
That’s pretty much been the extent of my Discord use, and I’m continually amazed to hear how others have been using it. I’ve seen the “join us on Discord, X, Facebook, etc.” for different games coming out, but never thought much of it or ever considered doing that.
Corporations cannot create nontoxic social media, the incentives will always be there to make it toxic.
I don’t know that’s true. The incentives to make it toxic come from engagement being the goal, which is a function of advertising being the income. I’m not advocating for it, but if there were a flat subscription and no ads, I don’t think they’d have any economic pressures for toxicity.
Oh shit, I’m sorry. I misunderstood what you were saying, I thought you were referring to them purchasing and running their own physical server hardware as opposed to running their servers off of a cloud platform.
That’s kinda a weird take, since the private server model was the only model until 10 years ago or so. Companies definitely know it. It’s just not financially efficient comparing to benefiting from economies of scale with hosting. Plus you don’t lose a ton of money or piss of players if you over or under estimate how popular the game will be.
Had they gone with private servers here, they would have lost even more money than they already have. The problem here is they spent too much money on a game no one wanted to play, chasing a fad that ended before it launched.
I actually looked into this, part of the explanation is that in the 80s, Sweden entered a public/private partnership to subsidize the purchase of home computers, which otherwise would have been prohibitively expensive. This helped create a relatively wide local consumer base for software entertainment as well as have a jump start on computer literacy and software development.
I think it’s used more often in computer science, but the difference between contiguous and continuous. Continuous means “without end” and contiguous means “without break.”
Gas-filler. There’s a couple states in the US where you aren’t allowed to pump your own gas, someone else has to do it for you, and you’re expected to then tip them.
The job is essentially getting me to pay to be inconvenienced. I’d prefer to pay to let me pump my own gas.
I think to some extent it’s a matter of scale, though. If I advertise something as a calculator capable of doing all math, and it can only do one problem, it is so drastically far away from its intended purpose that the meaning kinda breaks down. I don’t think it would be wrong to say “it malfunctions in 99.999999% of use cases” but it would be easier to say that it just doesn’t work.
Continuing (and torturing) that analogy, if we did the disgusting work of precomputing all 2 number math problems for integers from -1,000,000 to 1,000,000 and I think you could say you had a (really shitty and slow) calculator, which “malfunctions” for numbers outside that range if you don’t specify the limitation ahead of time. Not crazy different from software which has issues with max_int or small buffers.
If it were the case that there had only been one case of a hallucination with LLMs, I think we could pretty safely call that a malfunction (and we wouldn’t be having this conversation). If it happens 0.000001% of the time, I think we could still call it a malfunction and that it performs better than a lot of software. 99.999% of the time, it’d be better to say that it just doesn’t work. I don’t think there is, or even needs to be, some unified understanding of where the line is between them.
Really my point is there are enough things to criticize about LLMs and people’s use of them, this seems like a really silly one to try and push.
The purpose of an LLM, at a fundamental level, is to approximate text it was trained on.
I’d argue that’s what an LLM is, not its purpose. Continuing the car analogy, that’s like saying a car’s purpose is to burn gasoline to spin its wheels. That’s what a car does, the purpose of my car is to get me from place to place. The purpose of my friend’s car is to look cool and go fast. The purpose of my uncle’s car is to carry lumber.
I think we more or less agree on the fundamentals and it’s just differences between whether they are referring to a malfunction in the system they are trying to create, in which an LLM is a key tool/component, or a malfunction in the LLM itself. At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that it did a thing they didn’t want it to do, and that an LLM by itself may not be the correct tool for the job.
Where I don’t think your argument fits is that it could be applied to things LLMs can currently do. If I have an insufficiently trained model which produces a word salad to every prompt, one could say “that’s not a malfunction, it’s still applying weights.”
The malfunction is in having a system that produces useful results. An LLM is just the means for achieving that result, and you could argue it’s the wrong tool for the job and that’s fine. If I put gasoline in my diesel car and the engine dies, I can still say the car is malfunctioning. It’s my fault, and the engine wasn’t ever supposed to have gas in it, but the car is now “failing to function in a normal or satisfactory manner,” the definition of malfunction.
It implies that, under the hood, the LLM is “malfunctioning”. It is not - it’s doing what it is supposed to do, to chain tokens through weighted probabilities.
I don’t really agree with that argument. By that logic, there’s really no such thing as a software bug, since the software is always doing what it’s supposed to be doing: giving predefined instructions to a processor that performs some action. It’s “supposed to” provide a useful response to prompts, anything other than is it not what it should be and could be fairly called a malfunction.
Then I would steer away from arguments which are more debatable and stick to ones that are more robust and focus on the present and future than the past, and avoid anything that can get mired in debate. I’d focus on what the specific problem is (we will have fewer artists due to competition with AI) why it’s a problem (cultural stagnation, lack of new inspiration for new ideas) and why alternative solutions to regulation wouldn’t work (would socializing artistic fields work as they’d no longer be subject to market forces).
To be clear, your stance is it’s such a small step in the right direction, you’d prefer no step at all? Keep it cis-only or invest time/money in extra character models?
Haven’t digital price tags been used for decades? I’m sure these will be more high tech, but I remember ones like this at least 20 years ago
I think that’s been a fair description of the AAS space for a long time, which is fine. If you want innovation, go indie, if you want big budget, go AAA
I agree with you about CDs but I’m not sure I understand your point about physical copies. If they’re still buying and shipping a physical SD card, from a production perspective, I’m pretty sure that’s the same cost regardless of whether it’s a key or a full game. And considering that digital copies of games tend to be the same price as physical ones anyways, I think the physical aspect is pretty negligible and doesn’t factor into the price in any real way.