This is based on a misunderstanding of how prices are set. The price is set based on what the market can bear. Costs pretty much only determine if the thing is worth making, given that.

It’s the same reason rent doesn’t go down when property taxes do. I mention this not to tear you down, but because it’s a common argument for bad policy.

Thanks! Might steal that for my setup.

I’m not sure, but what are the wheels mapped to? Are they scroll or mouse x/y/something else?

I think they made the right call too. It’s better for almost everyone. A lot of flight sim types are also techies, so I bet the mods will bias that way.

I’m having a great time, but I also love FO4 and No Man’s Sky. The toe-dip I’ve done into colony building shows that they put real thought into Astroneer-like automated manufacturing stuff, which is my crack, and something I missed in NMS and FO4. It’s also clear from the first city that they know how depressing FO4 is, and wanted to add more variety.

Story and characters are a cut above any other Bethesda game so far, but that’s not saying much. My wife is replaying BG3 next to me, and it makes Starfield’s writing look amateurish by comparison. It’s not the core of the game though, so eh.

Downsides so far have been that the minor planets/moons don’t have much to do, and that inventory management is annoying with how much crafting components weigh.

Ship combat is… Fine. It’s not as intricate as Elite: Dangerous or SW:Squadrons (for sim gamers, weapons are all on REALLY forgiving gimbals, which makes precision unnecessary), but not actively bad like NMS VR. I think it’s a good compromise, because not everyone wants to deal with a realistic sim in what is essentially a minigame.

It’s also complex, which is good, but adds some awkwardness to the beginning.

As far as I understand, energy is conserved. Light inside a closed box will ultimately turn to heat too.

Scorn was worth a shot if you’ve already played Soma and RE. The mechanics are… Fine. The art is jaw-dropping. It’s like Amnesia if H. R. Giger had been the art director.

Don’t forget a bathroom trash can with a bag.

We’ll probably see sooner or later.

Generative design is already a mature technology. NASA already uses it for spaceship parts. It’ll probably be used for bridges when large-format 3D printers that can manage the complexity it introduces.

That assumes that the classes of problems that AI’s can solve remains stagnant. I don’t think that’s a good assumption, especially given that GPT4 can already self-review and refine its output.

I see both sides.

They’re probably going to completely (and intentionally) collapse the labor market. This has never happened before, so there is no historical prescedent to look at. The closest thing we have was the industrial revolution, but even that was less disruptive because it also created a lot of new factory jobs. This doesn’t.

The public hope is that this catastrophic widening of the gap between the rich and poor will force labor to organize and take some of the gains through legislation as an altenative to starving in the streets. Given that the technology will also make coercing people to work mostly pointless, there may not be as much pressure against it as there historically has been. Altman seems to be publically thinking in this direction, given the early basic income research and the profit cap for OAI. I can’t pretend to know his private thoughts, but most people with any shred of empathy would be pushing for that in his shoes.

Of course, if this fails, we could also be headed for a permanent, robotically-enforced nightmare dystopia, which is a genuine concern. There doesn’t seem to be much middle-ground, and the train has no brakes.

The IP theft angle from the end of the article seems like a pointless distraction though. All human knowledge and innovation is based on what came before, whether AI is involved or not. By all accounts, the remixing process it applies is both mechanically and functionally similar to the remixing process that a new generation of artists applies to its forebears, and I’ve not seen any evidence that they are fundamentally different enough to qualify as theft, except in the normal Picasso sense.

Interesting times.

Somehow the same artist:

Genuine question: Based on what? GPT4 was a huge improvement on GPT3, and came out like three months ago.

I seriously doubt this technology will pass by without a complete collapse of the labor market. What happens after is pretty much a complete unknown.

I don’t know exactly where to start here, because anyone who claims to know the shape of the next decade is kidding themself.

Broadly:

AI will decocratize creation. If technology continues on the same pace that it has for the last few years, we will soon start to see movies and TV with hollywood-style production values being made by individual people and small teams. The same will go for video games. It’s certainly disruptive, but I seriously doubt we will want to go back once it happens. To use the article’s examples, most people prefer a world with street view and Uber to one without them.

The same goes for engineering.

You might like Wesley Willis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jTPbcnqPxQ

Memory is funny. Stuff can play in the background and become familiar without you being consciously aware of it.

It would be possible to do this study without contamination by using completely unknown and newly-released songs as a dataset, and checking against future chart data regarding the popularity, or by examining the reaction of an isolated group of people without constant musical bombardment.

This is very preliminary. The samples were songs that were already hits at the time of the study, with no way to account for contamination. It’s highly plausible that the subjects had heard the “hit” songs before the study, and they were just measuring recognition.

Full paper is here: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frai.2023.1154663/full