logicrook

Really? It seems to me that downvotes are used very negatively, as they are put a strong incentive (for most people) not to express unpopular opinions, even if they are good comments. If they were used only to discourage low quality posts, it wouldn't change a lot, since the most upvoted comments would still be to the top.

He suggests to remove lives for spam/harassment, not for shitposting. So basically, positive loop+ draconian enforcement of essential rules, and no negative loop.

Thank you, for the excellent rephrasing.

>But Go (and tetris etc) are games of perfect information where perception of the game state is not a challenge.

In general, "perception of the game state" is not a challenge, at least according to good game design principles (e.g. in danmaku shmups, perception can be a challenge because of visual effects that are not really part of the game, but this is seen as poor game design, similarly to how being unable to differentiate backgrounds from platforms in a run&jump is bad design). Although there are games where the perception of the game state is a game mechanic, but Doom isn't really one.

But even in Doom, you can separate quite neatly the two tasks. The vision task essentially aims to reconstruct a model of the world. But in a video-game, this model comes for free. You can trivially limit the information an agent get to what he would get as a player (in games like MGS it's already the case, albeit in a very simplistic way). It's fairly easy to make a function that computes what is visible, what sounds a player would hear, etc. You can then rephrase the problem as make an AI that can only access this function, and this wouldn't change anything.

So for the AI community, I think a more interesting question would have been to design an AI over such a function.

The question seems flawed, as having an AI making decisions only based on visual information is basically confusing how you get the information (visual) and what information the AI get (only limited information, similar to what the player has). Two different problems that can be solved completely independently. The first problem makes no sense for a game (how intensive would be the computation), while the latter one could be very interesting, since it would rely on designing the AI more like a natural player. The catch however is that it's a "could", in itself there is no reason to imagine such AIs would make the game better in any way (over "cheating" AI's).

This is brilliant. I so wish I enrolled for an ethology PhD now...

Another human activity where avant-garde is fully indistinguishable from straight parody. Such a world we live in.

The takeaway should be to keep some sane garde-fou principle, such as "form follows function", and use it as unit test before rolling out a design/product/...

Nothing to do with the movie, but I thought his autistic aspects to be violently hilarious when reading more about him. He seemed to be at times completely oblivious of social implications and rules, which gave many great anecdotes to punctuate his life.

To rephrase you question, do you prefer something stupid, or something stupid that pretends to be clever (and sully something you like)?

Also, false dichotomy.

>HN is what we make it.

Exactly, and certainly there are other people who would like to see more of that in first page, but you just can't bash useful comments, so even with good intentions you can be part of the problem (talking for myself).

Thank you for this comment, and again for resubmitting this.

Oh thanks, that looks pretty interesting, and will distract from shitposting on random pop-science/political quasi-journalism articles for a while. It seems that it was the purpose of HN, but I'm not sure anymore.

However, it is unfortunately hard to make relevant comments on such articles. As the introduction says, it's pretty quick to set everything up (just one apt-get away), the clean racket syntax allows to define a calculus very neatly, but that's a far cry from being able to say much about it. I think I'll try to follow the tutorial with a classical calculus (λμ) and see how that turns out, but that's going to take some time. So here goes "This was posted once before by HN user 'ingve' but didn't get much attention".

> renders -> photoshop clarification was genuinely more useful

Except 'the clarification' is wrong. If you have a render, it doesn't mean it's 3D. It can be 3D, 2D, a mixture of both (last is probably the most frequent). It's a render.

This question can be more important than you think, since people may have the wrong expectations when they get a 'render' from the industry. Good post-processing (color balance, a bit of motion blur and other small effects) can work wonders to show off a product (e.g. video-game), while not being so representative of the end result. Which explains then the disclaimers on trailers and screenshots, which are not there to be pedantic.

Anyway, I'm off sending Wittgenstein to the camps.

Renders also mean drawings. Scott Robertson's book "How to render" does not explain how to press the render button in Blender, it explains how to actually draw (render) a concept art.

Usually, people don't feel the same way when thinking about any kind of work; you have to master the basics if you want express something. You need to learn to draw before you can get to the point of expressing yourself via paintings. You need to learn architecture before doing buildings, learn to code to do programs. Yet only the most extreme cases of idiots claim that learning the means of expression stifles expression. Why? I think it boils down to the lack of hard metrics and the link with social issues (the old orwellian fight between classes through language).

I'd say that you're not the only one thinking this way, but some would disagree because that makes you an "uncle tom".

The problem is when parents start seeing baby's poop splatters as artistic expression. The equivalent with computers would be to call bugs features?