Oh hell yeah. The perfect system for Yamaoka’s industrial scrape music.

Let me know how it goes. I’ve been real excited to see people experience this for the first time, haha.

Yeah, that’s a tough one.

I’d say “well, don’t,” but that’s pretty obviously useless. :p

I think I can say this much, though: Silent Hill, being so metaphorical, it’s kind of built like a big puzzle? It’s okay to “not get it” while you’re playing. Most of the stuff I know I’m pretty sure I picked up from fan wikis later on.

So, easier said than done, but: try not to think so much, haha.

The remake is also a little better about explaining its own plot, I think just by being a little more obvious. So, by the end, some things might click into place a little more.

And yeah, the sound design, (minor early game spoiler) have you noticed that >!the radio!< >!is a positional sound?!<

!Normally, you hear it kind of left and behind you. My instinct that the sound is supposed to be telling me where to look was so strong that I kept turning away from enemies I knew were right in front of me. That’s so genius I almost feel it must have been an accident.!<

SH2 remake is sooo good. I’m in disbelief, honestly—and I’m still not convinced Konami will take Silent Hill f seriously enough. God willing.

But yes, if you’re interested, play SH2 remake.

People who already have a desire for the real thing usually won’t be satisfied by pc games or whatever.

Exactly correct.

And, what desire is it that 6-year-old-AI enjoyers have again? I guess the 6-years-old part is incidental?

So, you imagine a world where friends of yours say things like “God, I want to kill people so badly. Fuck, I just wish society would let me.” And then what, they play Call of Duty until they climax?

If that’s how it is, god damn, maybe I do agree with Jack Thompson.

Is it actually “cute” that this person allegedly overinflates the worth of checkout labor, or were you being condescending?

Probably a few bucks. Could get a nice shirt.

Linux and… uh… GNU+Linux

Yeah, there are a lot of those people xD

I believe in you. If you fill yourself with determination, you too can use comedy to challenge people and also complain about those people canceling you loudly on NBC.

Oh, I know this video!

I remember playing it for somebody, and you could tell they were trying so hard to disagree with it in their head. I imagine they still believe it was fake, but it was funny.

Ah, but here we have to get pedantic a little bit: producing an AGI through current known methods is intractable.

I didn’t quite understand this at first. I think I was going to say something about the paper leaving the method ambiguous, thus implicating all methods yet unknown, etc, whatever. But yeah, this divide between solvable and “unsolvable” shifts if we ever break NP-hard and have to define some new NP-super-hard category. This does feel like the piece I was missing. Or a piece, anyway.

e.g. humans don’t fit the definition either.

I did think about this, and the only reason I reject it is that “human-like or -level” matches our complexity by definition, and we already have a behavior set for a fairly large n. This doesn’t have to mean that we aren’t still below some curve, of course, but I do struggle to imagine how our own complexity wouldn’t still be too large to solve, AGI or not.

Anyway, the main reason I’m replying again at all is just to make sure I thanked you for getting back to me, haha. This was definitely helpful.

Hey! Just asking you because I’m not sure where else to direct this energy at the moment.

I spent a while trying to understand the argument this paper was making, and for the most part I think I’ve got it. But there’s a kind of obvious, knee-jerk rebuttal to throw at it, seen elsewhere under this post, even:

If producing an AGI is intractable, why does the human meat-brain exist?

Evolution “may be thought of” as a process that samples a distribution of situation-behaviors, though that distribution is entirely abstract. And the decision process for whether the “AI” it produces matches this distribution of successful behaviors is yada yada darwinism. The answer we care about, because this is the inspiration I imagine AI engineers took from evolution in the first place, is whether evolution can (not inevitably, just can) produce an AGI (us) in reasonable time (it did).

The question is, where does this line of thinking fail?

Going by the proof, it should either be:

• That evolution is an intractable method. 60 million years is a long time, but it still feels quite short for this answer.
• Something about it doesn’t fit within this computational paradigm. That is, I’m stretching the definition.
• The language “no better than chance” for option 2 is actually more significant than I’m thinking. Evolution is all chance. But is our existence really just extreme luck? I know that it is, but this answer is really unsatisfying.

I’m not sure how to formalize any of this, though.

The thought that we could “encode all of biological evolution into a program of at most size K” did made me laugh.

but there’s no reason to think we can’t achieve it

They provide a reason.

Just because you create a model and prove something in it, doesn’t mean it has any relationship to the real world.

What are we science deniers now?

I would if it had any lasting power. I mean, can’t they just push out another eula update 6 months from now when this change is no longer useful to them?

Fuck arbitration, of course, I’m just not expecting this to really mean anything.

This comment reminds me of when Bitcoin became the world’s dominant currency.

Do you mean the voice of Mario…?

I do not want an AI voice to puppet his corpse for the next 150 years.

Being this unaccountable is why your kids don’t talk to you.

“Asherah, I’m sorry for being weirdly fixated on advice that doesn’t matter.” See, you could start there.

I also noticed that they were talking about sending arguments to a custom function? That’s like a day-one lesson if you already program. But this was something they couldn’t find in regular search?

Maybe I misunderstood something.

All right, I guess I’m here to collect then. We doin’ paypal or what?

Just cant resist provoking hostility to feed that persecution complex, can you.

See, this is unhinged. You’ve been antagonizing them this entire time.

You’ve criticized them for bringing up rape, and yet you just can’t seem to leave them alone, can you? Weird.

Some poor sap has come in here just to say something like “McDonald’s shouldn’t run their coffee machine so god damn hot if it’s going to fuse labia together,” and you’ve come in to correct the record: “Hm. Well. Actually, the only safe way to handle hot coffee is not to buy one. I’m very smart.” Cool. Thanks, dude. I don’t know what that has to do with anything, but I’m glad the abstinence-only sex ed seems to be working for you.

But if said old men decide to comment something like, “would love to squirtle on those jigglypuffs” on the revealing image, we’re suddenly entering nonconsensual territory.

I would love to know which women are set off by this.