@Rex's banner p

Rex


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 04 19:34:49 UTC

				

User ID: 109

Rex


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 04 19:34:49 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 109

I appreciate the perspective and it’s a good explanation for why we don’t expect paradigm changing physics to come from outside the official research/experimental channels.

I don’t think these prior should be so strong for advanced AI models. I’m sure mathematicians did not expect the avalanche of proofs that came out. And that they could have given very detailed explanations of why it wouldn’t happen.

I don’t know if GPT 6 or 7 will crack some novel physics. But i suppose I think it’s approaching more likely than not.

I was hoping someone would post about this. I have a few reactions.

  1. Solving math problems is a fairly low risk way to demonstrate Ai models ability to solve these sorts of problems. I can’t be the only one to wonder: if it can solve obscure math problems, I wonder what it could do with physics? Apparently nothing really changes when you solve these 700 math problems. But if you solve 100 physics problems, you may wind up with some commercially valuable or dangerous tech. Seems unlikely they would dish it out so readily. People seem to have made this assumptions that we’ve hit the limits of new physics. Anyone claiming interesting effects or results is a crank and it’s all fantasy. Perhaps that assumption will hold up with AI, but perhaps not. It seems to me there’s a chance that the breakthroughs have already happened this year, but they haven’t been released yet.

  2. The reactions from many mathematicians have been a sight to behold. These sorts of intelligent academics truly behave like the world owes them something. By and large they are an unsympathetic bunch that I personally will enjoy watching them be made obsolete. There was one guy on Reddit, who turned out to be a young postdoc, giving the same tired routine that I see from so many of them. Bemoaning way that OpenAi released the work. Complaining that it’s a pile of papers that he will never read because it would take too long to digest and he’s got more important things to do. That perhaps if open Ai went through the proper channels and released peer reviewed articles in a real academic journal then, and only then, would the academic community accept the ideas. Maybe I’m generalizing too much from one guy, but I think this is a common refrain from these academic types.

I can’t wait to see how physicists react when the time comes.

I see. I agree there. But I am very curious to see what sort of stunts they can do with this in terms of lap times on race tracks like the Nurburgring - where pulling 2g+ corners would be sort of mind boggling.

Really? Cold gas thrusters on a car? I could be wrong, but is there anyone else who’s done this? Even as a personal side project? I would have guessed there are zero other companies that could design or install this tech, let alone program the software to invert a car and do a soft landing. Maybe another aerospace company could do it, but they haven’t. In the loosest definition, we have both cars and thrusters - but there’s something special about this.

Are the other auto companies that have found ways to radically change the traction equation?

This is a movie that years ago I would have been excited for. I generally like commercial movies that trend towards the artsy side and have something interesting to say - as opposed to just mindless movie fun.

The problem is that I’ve been burned too much lately. I went into One Battle After Another with an open mind and as a big PTA fan. I don’t know what exactly it is, but I just can’t handle such heavy handed messaging and themes that I profoundly disagree with. There was a time where I could appreciate a thoughtful film for its artistry, despite the fact that it was messaging something I disagree with. Maybe the current crop of these movies are just less skillfully executing on the idea. Maybe it’s me - I have become more radicalized over the past 10 years.

Either way, I don’t even want to see Digger because the best case scenario is that I leave the theater, reflect on it, and find the whole thing distasteful. That’s what happened to me with OBAA. I was moderately entertained in the theater, but after reflecting on it for 5 minutes in the car on the way home I just kept thinking about all the things I didn’t like about the movie, what it was saying and the overwhelming critical praise it was getting.

I mean this sincerely but I think we just have a very different definition of fun and we’re looking for different things in a game.

I need a game to be punishingly difficult and designed well enough to where I can practice and improve - sort of like golf. Mastery of a game.

Or I need a game that’s truly well designed and experiencing the interplay of systems is satisfying. I like building in games, all the way back to Sim City 2000. Valheim has a terrific building system where the pieces are small enough, clipable, and there’s a logical restrictions on weight/engineering. But if I’m given unlimited resources to build, and the building serves no functional purpose, I’m not satisfied. Valheim scratches that itch. Building is very functional. And at the same time you can get really flamboyant with the designs.

Enshrouded may have a great building system. But with no bare raids and no practical use (benches with craft from chest) , I am extremely bored by it.

So why do you play games? Is it just moment to moment fun? Second screen?

It’s an interesting discussion none the less.

It’s not a function of having time or not having time. I have 3 young kids and a demanding job. I have 2-3 hours of “me time” most days that I will sink into a good game. I’d rather spend 2 months making my way through Valheim than crossing new releases off my play list. Frankly, so few good and interesting games are released that I generally have a playlist of like 5-10 games I go back to. Very few of them are new releases.

I suppose it comes down to why you are playing video games. Seriously, why are you even playing Valheim? To cross it off a list? I’m sincerely asking.

Edit:

I fucking hate corpse runs. But fair enough that makes me not want to die. But that leads me to playing cautious and ultra boring all the time. I am absolutely not gonna risk a 50 minute meal count down on a risky and aggressive strategy.

Yes. There are consequences to death. And with no map, it’s much more likely your corpse and inventory is not getting recovered. But maybe if you remember where you were you can pull it off. You described combat as boring. It’s definitely not boring with those stakes. And playing defensively is typically a mistake. That’s what makes it interesting. It’s fully engaging. That’s why I think it’s a best in class. Literally the polar opposite of those new release slop games that play themself.

Thanks. Great stuff. Particular RojoFern and his Mushroom Cloud video. I find it very interesting and cool that there are creators out there that can put together better documentary style videos than big television production studios.

I’ve always been a fan of nuclear weapons content. When I was a kid I got a copy of The Effects of Thermonuclear Weapons from a local university library. Loved it. I have a DVD somewhere that has most of the good public videos of famous Nuke tests.

But I can’t imagine a video like this being made professionally for Tv. It would be too niche. But somehow some random guy is able to do it. There are likely millions of examples of this on YouTube. That’s exactly what I’m trying to find.

While I am always happy to hear people talk about Valheim, I disagree with many of your points. I find Valheim to be close to the platonic ideal of a survival game. People talk about video games as art and they generally are speaking of narrative and plot. I find the whole design of Valheim to be a superlative example of artistic expression.

Every part of the game has been carefully crafted and balanced around the the developers ideas and taste. Yes, the default setting are somewhat hardcore. There is friction. “Quality of Life” features are eschewed. The game is all the better for it and people should experience the game as they developers intend.

People also complain about the lack of “craft from chest” features. Or the limited inventory (somewhat relaxed in 1.0). People complain the developers are lazy and QoL like this should have been implemented years ago. It’s very clear at this point that it’s not a matter of prioritization, skill, or investment on the devs part. Those features fundamentally change the experience. Some people may be tuned off. Fine. But leaning into these features is what makes the game more of a pure survival game. Compared to every other generic slop/sandbox game. I find video games developers fairly loathsome. But I have supreme respect for Iron Gate for sticking to their guns and not giving the lowest common denominator NPCs what they want.

Compare Valheim to Enshrouded. A somewhat popular, perhaps more popular, survival game that is superficially very similar to Valheim. I found that game to be total trash. It’s got all the QoL that people ask for and more “fluid” combat. It’s also incredibly generic. No soul. I suspect most people would be lucky to get 50 hours of fun out of that game.

Valheim demands more. I’ve got like 500 hours on Valheim over the past 4 years. I am likely going to roll a new world and start fresh on no map, no portal (NMNP) settings. NMNP is an even more pure survival experience. Getting lost in the massive world is very possible. Get caught in a storm and get too far off course and you may never find your base again. No portal requires you to make a base in each new biome. It completely changes the dynamic and makes it much more fun in my experience.

Anyone who hasn’t played Valheim should give it a try. It’s not for everyone. But if you like spending time with games and being fully engaged, you may love it. It’s very different from the modern AAA slop that plays itself.

I enjoy YouTube far more than cable tv. There are a lot of great channels out there and I find the best ones are usually in the 2k to 30k subscriber range. Discovery is typically pretty hard and they will randomly show up in various recommendations. New videos typically come out every few weeks or months - not the daily slop from big channels.

Anyone have any recommendations?

I’ll share one. @josh_from_xboxlive.

https://youtube.com/@josh_from_xboxlive?si=j_AwTobz8Jn73lv7

I like it because while he ostensibly talks about film, books, and pop culture, he has some novel takes I have not seen elsewhere.

Highlights include What’s Wrong with Modern Horror, where he takes down this whole concept of “elevated horror” in films.

Writing as a Magical Praxis where he describes a nexus of tarot and storytelling. I knew nothing of tarot and he had an interesting thesis.

Also he has great playlist on “the Homer of the 20th Century” aka George Lucas. Very interesting analysis of Star Wars as a modern myth and the various thematic elements of the series. I have not seen these takes anywhere else.

Anyone else have any recommendations?

Can you point me to the YouTube videos. Sounds right up my alley. I like Nathan fielder but I’m not expert.

How about some television talk.

I was looking for a show to watch on a second screen while I played the new Trails in the Sky 2nd Chapter and came across Slow Horses - BBC spy show about MI5 and a group of remedial agents. My parents have been watching for years and always recommend it. I loathe most modern television but for whatever reason decided to give it a shot.

It’s very much as expected. The first half of season 1 is all about a “loathsome” right wing terrorist cell, the Sons of Albion. Get this - these right wing youths kidnap an innocent British British-Asian boy and plan to behead him live on the internet in an ISIS style video. But wait, it’s actually a rouge opp carried out by the evil girlboss intelligence minister. They then do a double fakeout where the Sons of Albion get wise to the setup and the scary right wing guy goes on a rampage and attempts to carry out the beheading.

This is a completely ludicrous plot line and it appears that Apple’s Slow Horses is going to be every bit as awful as I expected for a show developed after 2016. Does Hollywood imagine there are actually these sort of right wing terror cells just waiting to activate? Despite all evidence to the contrary and dozens if not hundreds of other instances of racial and political violence perpetrated against white people? Or is the goal to get boomers all worked up about dangerous right wing ideologies. Are they stupid or liars?

For anyone here who’s watched it, does Slow Horses get better? Is there anything of value here?

I’m separately on season 4 of Le Bureau des Legendes - a French foreign intelligence tv drama produced by Canal and very highly regarded by anyone in the Anglosphere that’s seen it. It’s the show that Paramount’s The Agency is based on. And I must say the The Bureau is truly excellent. Season 1 aired in 2015 so it’s only mildly annoying with politics. Very mild. It’s really great and worth a watch if you haven’t seen it. I have a lot of thoughts on it that I can share if anyone is interested. But it reminds me a lot of 24, with less action and more drama.