LogFAQs > #952551797

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, Database 8 ( 02.18.2021-09-28-2021 ), DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Controversial Opinion #4: Automation
LinkPizza 04/06/21 11:34:14 PM #123:	darkknight109 posted... Except, games aren't "something new" - that's an illusion. They are the result of the data gathered by the biological computers that are our brains being permuted and combined into new combinations, the exact way an AI does. The only difference is the scope and scale of the data gathered, something that AI will be able to handle one day. Not all of them are. Some are sequels, or very similar to each other. Or a different version of certain things. Though, many do have things that make their game unique from others. Whether its weapons, characters, etc.. There are new series that come out, though, as well With how much stuff the world has done up to this point, unique is harder to find That being said, something I do like about human developed games are certain glitches that get left in. Or ways to become overpowered when it shouldnt be possible. Those can be pretty funny. I feel AI wouldnt make those mistakes darkknight109 posted... I feel like you've completely forgotten what you were originally arguing. Your original point was that in a fully automated world without money, people wouldn't make games or art because no one wants to do that unless they're getting paid. I pointed out that people already make games and art and distribute it for free today, so they would be willing to do it in a future without money as well. Then you decided to argue that money will still exist in the future. Well, if that's your argument, then what were you complaining about to begin with? Your entire initial argument is that people don't make art/games if they don't get paid so a moneyless future is bad; now you're arguing that there will be money in the future, but that means people making art/games will still be paid, invalidating your original argument. You've basically short-circuited your own argument at this point. Please sort it out and get back to me once you've worked out what it is you're actually trying to put forward. No one wants to do things without compensation. Thats what I believe. But from the very beginning, Ive always said that there will still be money. From the beginning. But I said in a world that was fully automated, most people wouldnt make games. At least, not for the world. The ones that do will probably end up taking a long time as they most likely would be doing it on their own. And we have a few people on this site that are developing games. And they do seem like they take a lot of time, even with a small team. And most projects will probably be single person. And many may not ever finish. The points I make dont contradict each other because I know well still have money. My point was in a fully automatic world (which I dont believe will happen), people wouldnt want to make things without compensation Weve literally been talking about that for a while now. So I believe in both of those things. Neither are invalidated. Both still stand. I believe there will still be money. But in a world where there wasnt money, I dont believe many, if any, people would do stuff without compensation darkknight109 posted... What do you mean you don't know "what it is"? "It" is music (or pictures, in the case of the first link) - there's not really any more to it than that. Sorry. I should have said I dont know enough about music to say anything about it. When Ive watched reviews on music made them online, it would usually have somebody who knows more about music that was talking about it darkknight109 posted... For those places with only a few registers, there would have to be. Sure. For those places. For places like Wal-Mart and Target that have rows of them, theyd be fine. Technically, with places with more than two registers, it should be fine as they usually replace two regular registers with 4 they would just have to cover the area where the two registers were darkknight109 posted... Not all stores are big enough to have a tech R&D division, and even the ones that do likely have competing priorities for their time. If their overall savings are not projected to be large, those man-hours are probably going to be assigned elsewhere. Probably not all stores. But many are under a parent company who might have done the research for them. Like while the bus stations parent company wont give up money, they do send training videos. And send information back and forth between them darkknight109 posted... Well first off, you're not adjusting for inflation and secondly, you're restricting yourself to the top-end models. I can get a brand-new smart phone today for $90; even without adjusting for inflation, there were no smart phones available that cheap 15 years ago. Yes, if you insist on having the newest, flashiest model, you're not necessarily going to see price savings, but if you're willing to go with something that's not top-of-the-line, lower costs become available the further into a product's development you go. Yeah. I can get a brand new iPhone 6 for $100. But thats an older model. When the newer models first come out, they were always more. I remember when the 7 came out, and it cost much more than my 6. And I had the 128GB version. And every new phone starts off pretty high, though. As time goes by (and newer versions come out), they get cheaper If you go with something cheaper and older, itll be less. But why would they install the older model that will be outdated in stores. They want the newest model thats better, and probably still gets most parts made for it. Eventually, the older models will most likely break easier, need more maintenance, and parts become scarce earlier darkknight109 posted... You think wrong because you're applying human traits to a machine. Robots don't "focus" on anything; they simply take in data from all around them. Having them read a human's face and identify potential problems (like them talking on a phone or nodding off) doesn't take any more effort from them than driving normally. Unlike humans, who have to focus their attention on specific tasks, AI are true multi-taskers, able to do as many different simultaneous tasks as they need to with no drop in effectiveness. Except I dont think theyll recognize all that all the time. I think they are mostly sensing the objects around to see when to stop or steer away. But I dont see them seeing a person looking a little sleepy and then honking to give them a shock to wake up, and maybe pull over. And thats if it notices them nodding off. Because it could be someone who looks awake, but is sleep. Or they could think someone who head is all the way back on the headrest is asleep, when they just sit like that --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:952551797] in Controvers... [t:79384298]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Except, games aren't "something new" - that's an illusion. They are the result of the data gathered by the biological computers that are our brains being permuted and combined into new combinations, the exact way an AI does. The only difference is the scope and scale of the data gathered, something that AI will be able to handle one day. </quote> Not all of them are. Some are sequels, or very similar to each other. Or a different version of certain things. Though, many do have things that make their game unique from others. Whether its weapons, characters, etc.. There are new series that come out, though, as well With how much stuff the world has done up to this point, unique is harder to find That being said, something I do like about human developed games are certain glitches that get left in. Or ways to become overpowered when it shouldnt be possible. Those can be pretty funny. I feel AI wouldnt make those mistakes darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>I feel like you've completely forgotten what you were originally arguing. Your original point was that in a fully automated world without money, people wouldn't make games or art because no one wants to do that unless they're getting paid. I pointed out that people already make games and art and distribute it for free today, so they would be willing to do it in a future without money as well. Then you decided to argue that money will still exist in the future. Well, if that's your argument, then what were you complaining about to begin with? Your entire initial argument is that people don't make art/games if they don't get paid so a moneyless future is bad; now you're arguing that there will be money in the future, but that means people making art/games will still be paid, invalidating your original argument. You've basically short-circuited your own argument at this point. Please sort it out and get back to me once you've worked out what it is you're actually trying to put forward. </quote> No one wants to do things without compensation. Thats what I believe. But from the very beginning, Ive always said that there will still be money. From the beginning. But I said in a world that was fully automated, most people wouldnt make games. At least, not for the world. The ones that do will probably end up taking a long time as they most likely would be doing it on their own. And we have a few people on this site that are developing games. And they do seem like they take a lot of time, even with a small team. And most projects will probably be single person. And many may not ever finish. The points I make dont contradict each other because I know well still have money. My point was in a fully automatic world (which I dont believe will happen), people wouldnt want to make things without compensation Weve literally been talking about that for a while now. So I believe in both of those things. Neither are invalidated. Both still stand. I believe there will still be money. But in a world where there wasnt money, I dont believe many, if any, people would do stuff without compensation darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>What do you mean you don't know "what it is"? "It" is music (or pictures, in the case of the first link) - there's not really any more to it than that.</quote> Sorry. I should have said I dont know enough about music to say anything about it. When Ive watched reviews on music made them online, it would usually have somebody who knows more about music that was talking about it darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>For those places with only a few registers, there would have to be. </quote> Sure. For those places. For places like Wal-Mart and Target that have rows of them, theyd be fine. Technically, with places with more than two registers, it should be fine as they usually replace two regular registers with 4 they would just have to cover the area where the two registers were darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Not all stores are big enough to have a tech R&D division, and even the ones that do likely have competing priorities for their time. If their overall savings are not projected to be large, those man-hours are probably going to be assigned elsewhere. </quote> Probably not all stores. But many are under a parent company who might have done the research for them. Like while the bus stations parent company wont give up money, they do send training videos. And send information back and forth between them darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Well first off, you're not adjusting for inflation and secondly, you're restricting yourself to the top-end models. I can get a brand-new smart phone today for $90; even without adjusting for inflation, there were no smart phones available that cheap 15 years ago. Yes, if you insist on having the newest, flashiest model, you're not necessarily going to see price savings, but if you're willing to go with something that's not top-of-the-line, lower costs become available the further into a product's development you go. </quote> Yeah. I can get a brand new iPhone 6 for $100. But thats an older model. When the newer models first come out, they were always more. I remember when the 7 came out, and it cost much more than my 6. And I had the 128GB version. And every new phone starts off pretty high, though. As time goes by (and newer versions come out), they get cheaper If you go with something cheaper and older, itll be less. But why would they install the older model that will be outdated in stores. They want the newest model thats better, and probably still gets most parts made for it. Eventually, the older models will most likely break easier, need more maintenance, and parts become scarce earlier darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>You think wrong because you're applying human traits to a machine. Robots don't "focus" on anything; they simply take in data from all around them. Having them read a human's face and identify potential problems (like them talking on a phone or nodding off) doesn't take any more effort from them than driving normally. Unlike humans, who have to focus their attention on specific tasks, AI are true multi-taskers, able to do as many different simultaneous tasks as they need to with no drop in effectiveness. </quote> Except I dont think theyll recognize all that all the time. I think they are mostly sensing the objects around to see when to stop or steer away. But I dont see them seeing a person looking a little sleepy and then honking to give them a shock to wake up, and maybe pull over. And thats if it notices them nodding off. Because it could be someone who looks awake, but is sleep. Or they could think someone who head is all the way back on the headrest is asleep, when they just sit like that --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1