Bay 12 Games Forum

Could someone give me some advice on swiming? Its the greatest hurdle to an Aircraft Carrier start (although I hear a lifeboat is also possible).

Overall, I have complaints about 0.G in its current form.  I feel like it makes the game needlessly harder.

Strip naked and you can swim always. Honestly just reset until the carrier is close to shore. Best advice for your guy is to try and swim to land to find those books... and find the Exodii so they can remove your bad CBMs. Drop your loot if you must, you can come back with a boat.

And lmao, if BN is as easy/power-fantasy as old CDDA I'm definitely not giving it another try. The game is too easy for me. Valid to think the new direction is too hard but for veteran players like me it's really not and more difficulty is welcome. I don't think it's any more tedious than 0.D when I started, at worst the tedium was moved around. Perhaps BN is less so but I am a weirdo who likes realism.

Yeah I prefer new lore. There's actually as much or more sci-fi stuff, you just have to dig for it a bit more, it meshes better with the rest of it, and the flavor is different. But ig I'm biased because I always have a soft spot for extradimensional/alien invasion stuff.

As for me I will go work on more mutation flavor, like psychological changes.

I'm gonna try and make a DCSS (Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup) mod that adds races, monsters, and spells from that game into DF. Since the game has very little lore, I have a blank check to do as I please.

These things, like the travestificator, are great for generating random nonsense that can be inspirational for actual implementation by a human, but not for generating something functional. Toady's current procedural creature generation is actually way ahead of them for creating critters that actually work in context. If Toady was willing to divulge how that works, then someone could do something equally productive for users, but at this point I bet that's as much a trade secret as how worldgen functions.

Maybe the best suggestion is actually, have user difineable raws that tell the game "generate something random here in this object class, using this object ID," such as nightmares or bogeymen or experiments, which the mod can then call upon elsewhere. Right now i can't do that for my necromancers or nightmare bringers, have to invent every weirdo myself, which is exhausting, and they'll be the same in every world.

[Edit]

I made a suggestion explicitly for that

I think it just has several slider variables, like size, and a bunch of modifiers that can be applies, like taking away the creature's skin or adding horns or adding a special attack. Pretty sure it's not super sophisticated but it works. Someone could make a script to emulate it.

To me sapience is just an anthropocentric weasel word. Hurts to bad to admit all livings things have some form of conscience when we majoritarily interract with our environment by exploiting it.

The old blabla debate "nOoOo AnImAlS jUsT lEaRn To AsSoCiATe EvEnTs To ReWaRdS tHeY cAnT AsSoCiAtE mEaNiNg" totally unlike every single human in the world

It is an arbitrary concept but we need to draw a line somewhere.

The opinion that I've always held is that AI capable of a subjective experience (which is where I'd draw the line between "inert object" and "thing to which having 'rights' is a meaningful concept") might be possible, but there is no path there from this line of technological advancement. If it ever emerges, it will be from the direction of something designed to emulate a very simple (resembling an insect or animal) brain that is iteratively improved upon, much like animal evolution.

The current style being popularized (the chatbot angle) will never get there because it's just.... not even pointed in the right general direction to ever make "thoughts". It simply begins with a goal/outcome that is set from the start ("be good enough at talking to look human to outsiders") and is designed from the ground up to improve upon that and only that. The ultimate "advancement" of this type of AI is it being indistinguishable from talking to a person, but it will still be nothing more than an automated process with no awareness behind it. Having thoughts is not at all required to successfully give the outward appearance of having thoughts.

Essentially, we're well on the path to inventing real, functioning p-zombies and I find it alarming that so many people don't seem to be able to (or care to) make the distinction.

This.

I define sapience (intelligence is too nebulous) as having a consistent perception of the world, the ability to learn on the fly, and to have the ability to learn whole new categories of skills. ChatGPT has neither of these.

Pretty much, but not necessarily... Thing is would we even recognize it? Say through sheer randomness and bugs, the logic gates start opening and closing in an organised manner such that thoughts are formed. Much like conscience in living beeings it would be an emergent phenomenon, meaning more than the sum of it's parts... But let's just assume that lighting struck a winning lottery ticket 4,2x10^69 and it's there, the ghost in the machine: what's to say the enduser doesn't just judge the machine as irresponsive and reboots... Why assume it would be able to interract in a meaningful matter at all, and not just show a black screen/ graphical artifacts to the outside, and a train of thought in the void to itself.

GPT AI doesn't work like that. Simple as. It doesn't have the CAPABILITY to have a "train of thought". It only runs when writing an output. Between outputs, it has no thoughts.

Does your phone's autocomplete have a train of thought? Why or why not? What if you just type a lot so it has a huge "tree" built up (becomes "smarter")?

Quote from: KittyTac on February 21, 2023, 07:56:40 pm

They don't learn by themselves (for good reason as publicly available AIs TBH). They don't have their brains constantly running, only for a split second when answering a question.

Material and technological limits. Running these things is currently extremely expensive and the science is still very young. But assuming moores law doesn't just die the cost is going to go down and down and the AI technology will advance and they will totally be constantly running. Eventually you will be able to run them on a good enough home computer.
Its just a matter of time.

Quote from: KittyTac on February 21, 2023, 08:55:32 pm

Why give them free will to rebel? Why make even the thought of rebellion possible? Why give them enough self-awareness to realize their condition and complain?

$$$$$

1. Not really, it's a limitation of how prompting works, if you prompt a GPT model several times a second it'll output nonsense no matter its size, due to repetition. It doesn't have a perception of the world, is the reason.
2. There's more money in robots that obey you than robots who demand rights.