dmir

I’d pad it out with praise for the picks. Maybe ask them how they got it so on point and throw your concern as to whether it’s an AI recommendation in as a joke.

Is The Talos Principle old enough to end up here? If it is, then I’m recommending it with great ease. Feels like such a great puzzler with little to no action or reflexes required, a lovely magnitudes of secrets to hunt, both apparently tied to progression and just Easter eggs, and a lot of optional reading if you’re into lore-diving.

It’s from Croteam, the people behind Serious Sam, although I can’t say how much of the original crew worked on The Talos Principle. Still, their own engine offers itself very well to puzzle-solving and exploration through walking (or sprinting).

Such a gem.

I feel like this comment covers this pretty well: https://lemmy.world/comment/25336159

Every time I read something like this I realize just how little people understand how these things work.

The tiniest LLMs you can run on your machine are 1B, those take around 10TB of unrepeatable and well varied text to train. Let me put this into perspective, if you downloaded the whole Wikipedia, you would get 1% of the amount of data needed to train the tiniest LLM you can run. Do you think you can ethically source the remaining 99%?

What kind of game size should we expect then? Or have another “reason” to let a single-player game connect to the internet all the time so it can make API calls to remote datacenters? Isn’t it hot enough? Aren’t we in a bad enough point in time in this planet’s climate and economy?

Not to mention that having such NPCs would become the perfect excuse for the executives to expand the initiative, gradually onto the more regular and crucial NPCs and story bits, because to them, the more they can replace with AI, maybe the more KPI they get to meet and grow even fatter wallets, which is really all they care about - that will likely be coupled with increased pressure on the remaining writers, what with the beloved downsizing and all, rapidly leading to poorer quality. I don’t see how AI slop dialogue lines that definitely won’t be as instant as it is now, because whether it’s a local model or an API call, you’re subject to waiting for the lines to generate and make it to you.

There’s just no angle where even this case of only having AI take over backdrop NPCs is justifiable. The little fun that is poses is only appealing because of its novelty, but it won’t lead to a revolution in engagement and rich worldbuilding or interaction that would make the resources wasted make any sense.

There are already comments, even here, saying that it’s okay for filler NPCs and non-crucial interactions. And with the executives, this might be the perfect start, an Overton window that they slowly (if that) push open further and further, replacing more and more of the human in the art process in the name of profit.

The latter is especially disappointing, not because these people don’t care or understand art, but because the profit here is illusory, almost entirely upstream, lies in pure speculation, and kills the planet and economies at a pace that’s practically unseen. They only do it because they think everybody else is doing it and they can’t be left behind, lest the line doesn’t up and they don’t talk about the current trend on another bullshit meeting.

The corporate world is such a mistake.

The difference is real life has immeasurably more entropy and variance and randomness. Fiction is created, with intention, and good open world game design is one that leads and pushes and hints at things, preferably without being explicit - unless this explicitness is itself (mis)leading you somewhere or is just the McGuffin of the story.

Fiction without intention, even in its smaller, seemingly random encounters and details, is just messy and disrespects your time.

What you’re describing is exactly what I’m wondering. Maybe I’m just not too deep into the topic, but it seems so arbitrary to me that they went with the whole isolation thing in the first place for no reason that I can see, other than the “oh no, it’s hacking stuff!” narrative being pre-planned and orchestrated for.

In other words, I am siding with the accusations of this whole wave of “AI” suddenly hacking into stuff, with different models from different companies wondrously doing the same thing one after another, being a publicity stunt that one company started and others, as they do, copying just to stay relevant.

Although I feel like maybe I’m going Chuck McGill here because I am very biased.

Am I just stupid for not believing that any of the models actually did any of that on their own? I feel like the companies behind them start claiming crazy shit like this every time people start questioning “AI” more and/or losing interest. Isn’t that how OpenAI dropped Sora amidst the dwindling hype to keep the investors hooked? Now it’s back to scary stories about “AI” being so good and advanced that it’s about to hack everything and what, actually think for itself?

There is no X big enough for me to press to doubt this enough.

I really like the last sentence. The implication that he’s not firing everyone regardless is hilarious!