EnsignRedshirt [he/him]

  • 0 Posts
  • 62 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 26th, 2020

help-circle


  • Properly-designed tools with good data will absolutely be useful. What I like about this analogy with the talking dog and the braindead CEO is that it points out how people are looking at ChatGPT and Dall-E and going “cool, we can just fire everyone tomorrow” and no you most certainly can’t. These are impressive tools that are still not adequate replacements for human beings for most things. Even in the example of medical imaging, there’s no way any part of the medical establishment is going to allow for diagnosis without a doctor verifying every single case, for a variety of very good reasons.

    There was a case recently of an Air Canada chatbot that gave bad information to a traveler about a discount/refund, which eventually resulted in the airline being forced to honor what the chatbot said, because of course they have to honor what it says. It’s the representative of the company, that’s what “customer service representative” means. If a customer can’t trust what the bot says, then the bot is useless. The function that the human serves still needs to be fulfilled, and a big part of that function is dealing with edge-cases that require some degree of human discretion. In other words, you can’t even replace customer service reps with “AI” tools because they are essentially talking dogs, and a talking dog can’t do that job.

    Agreed that ‘artificial intelligence’ is a poor term, or at least a poor way to describe LLM. I get the impression that some people believe that the problem of intelligence has been solved, and it’s just a matter of refining the solutions and getting enough computing power, but the reality is that we don’t even have a theoretical framework for how to create actual intelligence aside from doing it the old fashioned way. These LLM/AI tools will be useful, and in some ways revolutionary, but they are not the singularity.




  • Are there any flat-moon conspiracy theorists? I feel like there’s way more evidence that the moon is flat. We see the same side all the time. If it were round, wouldn’t we see different parts of it? We’re supposed to believe that it’s a spheroid orbiting us at the exact rotational speed required so that the same side is facing us all the time? Be serious.







  • The existence of time travel and the idea of a Temporal Cold War suggests that any given future is just one of many possible futures. The events in Discovery are canon, insofar as they did happen, but whether future Star Trek properties will take the Discovery future as a given is a more open question. Discovery was written very deliberately to avoid being constrained by canon, but that also means that the events are narratively very removed from the rest of the franchise.

    My guess is that whoever ends up in charge of making the next chapter of Star Trek will want to establish their own timeline going forward for the same reason that the Discovery creators did, and they’ll largely ignore the easily-ignorable Discovery events, at least as relates to the far future. The alternative is either to set the next series in an even more distant future, which comes with its own issues, or setting it before the 31st century and having to write around a whole bunch of barely-established future canon that only applies to Discovery. I could be wrong, but it seems like the path of least resistance.






  • Maybe Hasbro is finally realizing that they never understood why D&D is valuable, and are coming to the conclusion that they’ll never be able to monetize it properly.

    With seemingly-comparable game franchises, a lot of the value is in either a business model that’s good at generating consistent sales (selling cards or miniatures) and/or the setting and characters that can be used to sell merchandise. D&D has neither. No one really cares that much about the D&D lore, and the business model is selling books that aren’t even that necessary to play the game.

    The value in the D&D franchise is that the game mechanics (which aren’t protected by IP laws) are well-known by a large user base, plus there’s a lot of existing material that is compatible with that system. People play D&D because lots of people already know how to play, and it’s easy to find material to play with. Stuff like Baldur’s Gate is popular incidentally, mostly because the developers have been good at making games, but no one is going to get excited about a mediocre D&D game in the same way that people would for a 40k game.

    Hasbro has shown that they don’t understand this dynamic. When they tried to monetize the game system itself with the OGL nonsense, people just said “Okay, I guess I’ll just switch to a different RPG system” because of course that’s what you’d do. The community is interested in the hobby, not the franchise, and if the franchise is going to make it difficult to engage with the hobby, then the hobbyists, including content creators who do a lot of the heavy lifting to keep the franchise relevant, will go elsewhere.

    Hasbro likely thought they could take D&D and do the usual “we have this user base and we can get X amount from merch, Y amount from video games, Z amount from some sort of subscription service, etc.” not realizing that no one actually cares that much about D&D as a franchise, at least not in the same way as with stuff like Warhammer or Star Wars. It’s a hobbyists hobby, and the hobbyists aren’t going to go full “consooom!” on D&D lunchboxes and funko pops.

    TTRPGs are, to their credit, extremely difficult to monetize. It’s hard to squeeze money out of a game when the players can buy a couple of PDFs and then play for years, only buying new material when there’s an update or a setting book that looks interesting to them. It’s a bad business, which makes it a terrific hobby, and I wish Hasbro a very lmao get owned if they do try to pass it along to someone else.


  • The actor of captain Picard

    Do you honestly not recognize Sir Patrick Stewart? No shade, it’s just wild to think there would be people who don’t recognize him at all, given the length and breadth of his career.

    In answer to your question, I can’t speak for Patric Stewart, but my guess is that he chose to play the scene that way because it’s likely that very few people in the Federation smoke, and that’s probably doubly true for people who spend most of their time on a spaceship. My guess would be that Stewart was trying to indicate to the audience that smoking would be somewhat of an anachronism in the 23rd century.