The DLC is really the right balance for FromSoft.

The zones in the base game are slightly too big.

In the DLC, it’s still open world and extremely flexible in how you explore it, but there’s less wasted space.

It’s very tightly knit and the pacing is better as a result.

It’s like Elden Ring was watching masters of their craft cut their teeth on something new, and then the DLC was them applying everything they learned in that process.

Can’t wait for their next game in that same vein (especially not held back by last gen consoles).

I hate that the Smithscript weapons can’t be buffed.

Especially for the daggers.

Wanted to pew pew little bolts of lightning buffed daggers doing an additional 200+ damage per hit. 😢

No, it was awesome. Went to like 12 over the years. Early 2000s was peak E3.

Probably added after that update.

The new items stuff in particular seems like QoL considerations for “we just added a hundred items to the game for players coming back to it after months away.”

I’ve always thought Superman would be such an interesting game to do right.

A game where you are invincible and OP, but other people aren’t.

Where the weight of impossible decisions pulls you down into the depths of despair.

I think the tech is finally getting to a point where it’d be possible to fill a virtual city with people powered by AI that makes you really care about the individuals in the world. To form relationships and friendships that matter to you. For there to be dynamic characters that put a smile on your face when you see them in your world.

And then to watch many of them die as a result of your failures, as despite being an invincible god among men you can’t beat the impossible.

I really think the gameplay in a Superman game done right can be one of the darkest and most brutal games ever done, with dramatic tension just not typically seen in video games. The juxtaposition of having God mode turned on the entire game but it not mattering to your goals and motivations because it isn’t on for the NPCs would be unlike anything I’ve seen to date.

It’s not just underestimation, it’s outright misinformation.

There’s so much research by this point over the past 18 months that there’s an incredible amount going on beyond “it’s just a Markov chain, bro.”

It was never a Markov chain as that ignored the self-attention mechanism which violated the Markov property. It was just some people trying to explain it used a simplified description which went viral.

Sometimes talking to people who think it’s crap feels like talking to antivaxxers. The feelings matter more than the research and evidence.

At a pretrained layer, the model is literally a combination of a normal distribution curve of capabilities.

It can autocomplete a flat earther as much as a Nobel physicist given sufficient context.

So it makes sense that even after the fine tuning efforts there’d be a distribution in people’s experiences with the tools.

But just as the average person’s output from Photoshop isn’t going to be very impressive, if all you ever really see is bad Photoshops and average use, you might think it’s a crappy tool.

There’s a learning curve to the model usage, and even in just a year of research the difference between capabilities of the exact same model from then to now is drastically different, based only on learnings around better usage.

The problem is the base models are improving so quickly the best practices for the old generation of models goes out the window with the new. So even if there were classes available I wouldn’t bother pointing you to them as you’d just be picking up info obsolete by the time the classes finished or shortly thereafter.

I’d just strongly caution against betting against the tech’s continued capabilities and improvements if you don’t want to be surprised and haven’t taken the time to look into them operating at their best.

The OP post is pretty crap compared to the top 0.5% usage.

The majority of people right now are fairly out of touch with the actual capabilities of modern models.

There’s a combination of the tech learning curve on the human side as well as an amplification of stories about the 0.5% most extreme failure conditions by a press core desperate to feature how shitty the technology they are terrified of taking their jobs is.

There’s some wild stuff most people just haven’t seen.

The level of detail in Helldivers 2 is insane for the type of game and company size.

Deformable terrain and buildings, enemy animations when you shoot off different limbs and they keep moving towards you, your cape burns off more and more as you use your jetpack, etc.

Call of Duty has 3,000 devs working on their titles.

Arrowhead has around 100 employees total.

I very much believe this game took that long with a team that size, and it shows and is a large part of why it’s been so successful.

That’s a fun variation. The one I test out models with is usually a vegetarian wolf and a carnivorous goat, but the variation to no other objects is an interesting one too.

By the way, here’s Claude 3 Opus’s answer:

The solution is quite simple:

1. The man gets into the boat and rows himself and the goat across the river to the other side.

2. Once they reach the other side, both the man and the goat get out of the boat.

And that’s it! Since there are no additional constraints or complications mentioned in the problem, the man and the goat can directly cross the river together using the boat.

It’s outstanding, but even right now at its best it still isn’t perfect.

I’m very, very much looking forward to what they can eventually do using UE5 as the base in an era with generative AI to fill out the edges.

When the polish (pun intended) is there, the game is beyond everything else. But when you end up just a bit past the edges of where it holds your hand, it quickly loses the veneer, which is the key difference vs something like a Rockstar open world (but also very different budgets and aims).

There’s a handful of studios I think will adapt especially well to the future of game development, and CDPR is one of them.

Because it is going to be possible to have CP 2077 main scenario style interactions across an entire open world within the next decade. And who better to curate that experience than the people delivering it in a diagonal slice?

It’s the back and front of a single sheet of paper.

I love how he’s modernizing the punch lines to all the old Soviet jokes.

Bonnie sure as shit isn’t wearing pearls to clutch. Maybe clutching her Hallmark locket with a picture of her favorite Hummel figurine inside it.

That the kid’s kid got more of the dad’s seed in the “shifting lottery.”

It’s not like he’s saying a kid that looks like the mother isn’t getting any contribution from the father.

And while he’s technically wrong in the idea that there’s a disproportionate overall contribution from each parent, it is true that genes and traits responsible for physical appearance can be disproportionately passed on.

I think his idea includes things like “if the kid looks like the maternal grandfather, more contribution was from the mother’s seed than the father’s.”

Not that it’s exclusively that the contributions are only dependent on how closely matching the appearance of the mother or father and only the mother or father.

You mean like the first few lines of what I quoted where he talks about how traits from grandparents or great grandparents can come back?

Only a hundred years ahead and didn’t nail survival of the fittest? Pshh, amateur.

Here’s Lucretius in 50 BCE:

In the beginning, there were many freaks. Earth undertook Experiments - bizarrely put together, weird of look Hermaphrodites, partaking of both sexes, but neither; some Bereft of feet, or orphaned of their hands, and others dumb, Being devoid of mouth; and others yet, with no eyes, blind. Some had their limbs stuck to the body, tightly in a bind, And couldn’t do anything, or move, and so could not evade Harm, or forage for bare necessities. And the Earth made Other kinds of monsters too, but in vain, since with each, Nature frowned upon their growth; they were not able to reach The flowering of adulthood, nor find food on which to feed, Nor be joined in the act of Venus.

For all creatures need Many different things, we realize, to multiply And to forge out the links of generations: a supply Of food, first, and a means for the engendering seed to flow Throughout the body and out of the lax limbs; and also so The female and the male can mate, a means they can employ In order to impart and to receive their mutual joy.

Then, many kinds of creatures must have vanished with no trace Because they could not reproduce or hammer out their race. For any beast you look upon that drinks life-giving air, Has either wits, or bravery, or fleetness of foot to spare, Ensuring its survival from its genesis to now."

• De Rerum Natura book 5 lines 837-859

Bonus round, nearly nailed Mendelian trait inheritance too:

Sometimes children take after their grandparents instead, Or great-grandparents, bringing back the features of the dead. This is since parents carry elemental seeds inside – Many and various, mingled many ways – their bodies hide Seeds that are handed, parent to child, all down the family tree. Venus draws features from these out of her shifting lottery – Bringing back an ancestor’s look or voice or hair. Indeed These characteristics are just as much the result of certain seed As are our faces, limbs and bodies. Females can arise From the paternal seed, just as the male offspring, likewise, Can be created from the mother’s flesh. For to comprise A child requires a doubled seed – from father and from mother. And if the child resembles one more closely than the other, That parent gave the greater share – which you can plainly see Whichever gender – male or female – that the child may be.

• De Rerum Natura book 4 lines 1217-1232

If it’s inedible why does the amount you can’t eat matter?

It absolutely could.

With a reference frame constructed from over 500 adults, we tested a variety of mainstream LLMs. Most achieved above-average EQ scores, with GPT-4 exceeding 89% of human participants with an EQ of 117.

• https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.09042

We first find that LLM agents generally exhibit trust behaviors, referred to as agent trust, under the framework of Trust Games, which are widely recognized in behavioral economics. Then, we discover that LLM agents can have high behavioral alignment with humans regarding trust behaviors, particularly for GPT-4, indicating the feasibility to simulate human trust behaviors with LLM agents.

• https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.04559

A lot of people here have no idea just how far the field actually has come from dicking around with the free ChatGPT and reading pop articles.