dogleash

> I for one would love to be able to experience Godzilla Minus Zero interactively.

So would I. But I don't not want to experience it as a movie. It'd be something separate. Not an upgrade.

Which makes Sam's comment the inane blather of a pitchman. We don't need to bend over and try to steelman marketing dross. He doesn't care if that statement means nothing, why should we?

>audio-like music

My favorite kind of music.

> then the current and near-future capability of AI is being severely overstated

captain_renault_casablanca.gif

I think the fact we take the temperature of the market and label it as a "strong" or "weak labor force" is a counterfactual to the idea there's equivalent exploitation.

It's mutually beneficial (otherwise one party or the other would terminate the contract), but that a wide window for the balance of benefits to shift.

That sounds like a just so story invented by motivated reasoning.

>It would rather pursue more business opportunities.

You're agreeing with parent poster that they don't care to fight on principle (in the unlikely chance they hold any principle in the first place). You're just using avoidant terminology that skips the criticism inherent in parent's framing.

> the feared bottom of the slope was never reached

Hard disagree. Sometimes it's avoided, any other time we just go into cope mode. We discover on the ride down that the bottom isn't so bad. Turns out our collective control mechanisms didn't fail ourselves if the initial assessment was wrong.

> “No AI” is too simplistic.

In practice it's serviceable first-pass filter.

Of course it's a different dimension than "is this game worth the time and money?" But so are all the other datapoints meant to help consumers weigh a game purchase decision. They all have false positives and false negatives compared to actual enjoyment. Right now, people are voicing that the AI line is a relevant piece of selection criteria they believe they'd find useful would like to more easily automate.

No amount mental masturbation over false negatives will change that. It'll just make someone look defensive. Because the consumers that don't care to use AI as a selection criteria will just ignore that data point. Similar to how a content rating doesn't enter your head when you're not buying for a child.

>How can this be fixed?

People stop trusting what they read on the internet.

All alternates are just attempting to improve the baseline trustworthiness of random information from the internet (and/or LLM that's baby-birding it back to you). Any increase in how much people blindly trust random stuff from the internet only serves to increase the blast radius when it is wrong.

>I don't necessarily disagree with this post but I really disagree with how it is written and with the contempt it expresses towards a fellow tech guy.

It's the same "look at how right I am" post we've all read dozens of times. Dismissive and condescending about what projects should or shouldn't be explored, and of the people who explore the wrong ideas. Same as always, just with a fresh coat of paint for the AI age.

I have thoughts on what may be fruitful and worthwhile to explore. But this post isn't about that, really.

It depends. It sounds like you're all in on the ecosystem. I only have the apple account because I have an iphone. I didn't get one of those double check reauthentications since many years ago, up until last month when I got apple tv. I know because I had to reset my password and it was older than my use of a password manager.

> The biggest problem I have with reddit is mods can slowly but systematically ban users who express unfavourable opinions

I recently got banned from subreddit A1 because I commented in subreddit A2 without knowing the ongoing bloodfeud where A1 moderators didn't find the A2 moderators strict enough. I'm a tourist to the topic "A" all together and barely understood the lore of the topic. Let alone the cultural eggshells of following a search result into the wrong subreddit.