legend

You seem to have completely misunderstood my point, and I'm not optimistic that I'm going to make you understand it here, so we'll just have to leave it there. Glad you enjoyed the video, but it didn't work for me.

I'm not seeing a refutation to anything I've said. lol if you say so. Not sure why you're killing yourself defending this. If we keep going I half expect you take up the position that no, it's not likely Gandalf, it's a blue wizard!

So the point of the video was just to retread the same thoughts everyone has already talked about since the beginning of the show (probably even before it first aired) rather than pointing out things in the show that actually indicates it's not what we think? Well alright then. Great "theory" video I disagree, but I'm not really interested in dragging that out. Regardless you do agree there is evidence in favor of Gandalf, even if it's just one thing at the end and the video is not presenting the same.

Well fuck

He does

It's fine to say that we can't be *certain* it's Gandalf; indeed it could be a deliberate misdirection. But the video makes all the same points we could have made if all we knew was that a wizard would be featured in the show. There's nothing in the show to favor it being a blue wizard and that makes for a poor theory based only on wishful thinking. But if you agree it's not evidence, then you must agree with my statement that it's "not following the evidence!"

That's an interesting analogy! Like any analogy, I don't think it holds up the more you scrutinize it, but I can see why you might say that. I think the parts where it doesn't quite work is it's unclear what the topology of society w.r.t. that loss signal and whether it is sequential (where it's the sequential squashing operations that can induce vanishing gradients). There is some degree of sequential topology, but society is a bit more wide than deep, and the lack of action happens even on the highest level, not just the lowest. If I were to make an AI related analogy, I might go for saying it's a value function approximation error. In AI (RL), the value function estimates the cumulative future expected reward. In practice, this function has to be approximated (often with a neural net), but for various reasons it can be quite hard to approximate this stably and accurately, and small errors in the value function estimate can result in catastrophic failure of policy improvement. So in the case of climate change, people are too stupid to sufficiently estimate the value function

I did not know this tidbit. Jesus fucking Christ they're so bad and lazy.

I find it very hard to believe that the screenwriters put in the follow your nose line *just* as a nod. It's unbelievably clear what that implies so they're either telling us who is he, or they're deliberately misleading us. But lets put aside how strong the case is for Gandalf. What good points do you think he made that the stranger is a blue wizard? All I seemed to get from that video is him saying the blue wizards were around back then in Tolkien's lore, and he thinks it would be more interesting. Being more interesting to him isn't evidence that the stranger is a blue wizard, it's just a statement of what he wants, hence more wishful thinking than following the evidence

This seems more like wishful thinking than following the evidence.

I haven't verified all these claims, but it seems pretty consistent with other things I've read about how much of a turd Musk is

This bothered me at first, but these people are aware that they're not doing damage to the paintings because they're protected by glass and it's solely to get people talking. I think it's an ineffective strategy, but as long as they're not actually trying to ruin art I don't really care. Here is where one of them talked about it afterward

Oh yeah, that's a good thought!

I own this because CDPR gave it to me like 3 different times, but never played it; I've only played 2 and 3. So I'll definitely give the remake a shot!

Looks like Shutterstock is already starting to move in the direction of the kind of compensation model I was suggesting here. I really do think humanity will be able to figure out a compensation strategy because montization is what we're good at, and we should. We just need the law to catch up to further encourage it. Shutterstock will start selling AI-generated stock imagery with help from OpenAI - The Verge WWW.THEVERGE.COM The stock image company is also promising to reimburse creators whose work is used to train AI art models with a new Contributors Fund.

I used to feel the same way, but I'm coming around to it. Forcing it into small snippits achieves a few things. It forces people advertise the point quickly, lest they lose engagement. It forces people break their thoughts up into clearly communicable ideas. It allows quoting and responding to specific points. Provides a clearer off ramp to the reader if they got what they wanted. It prevents people replying to you with huge lengthy replies, which in turn may increase engagement. Ultimately, most people suck at writing and I think Twitter's constraints actually forces people to make more engaging content. That doesn't mean it's good for everything, but I think there is value in the constraint. To further make this point, counterintuitively, academia twitter is shockingly useful because the above factors make it easy to find content you might be interested in and it's low overhead to talk to the author.

Good. And I mean that in a positive way. No reason to drag shit out. Tell the story you want to tell with an ending.

I'm in for this nonsense!

I'm not really sure how much worse it can be than the current state of affairs.

I see. I'm not sure about that then!

Maybe I'm not sure what you're talking about. I thought you were talking about the gift they'll give you early on for having something like a P5 save (I imagine they'd do something different for Switch). That didn't include any personas, just items, but like Biggie, I can't imagine any special Personas they give you will be all that great for long. And if nothing else, you can always just not use any personas you have if you decide they're OP or something.

I've already played P5 twice; once in the vanilla game and once in Royal on PS4 when it released. It's an amazing game. One of the best classic JRPGs of the last 20 years, IMO. I will probably get the PC version again at some point too for the mobile option of steam deck if I need something for a long trip. Also, the third semester expansion in Royal is fantastic. It's hard to imagine where they can go after the main game end, but they found a brilliant way to give a very different kind of challenge to the characters. It's been a while since I played it, but I don't think that's a thing. You can just hang on to any consumables they give you if you don't want to use them immediately.

I'm down. I too am hyped that they're (1) bringing Kang into the fold of the movies, and (2) that as Kang is the excellent Jonathan Majors.

Long-term, you wouldn't program it that way. You'd build an AI that builds a theory of mind and reasons from that, and good theories of mind are inherently non-stationary, because even AI agents are non-stationary, and people certainly are too. It's a hard problem for sure, as are most problems in AI, but it's still a problem that can be solved.

Eh, that's not limitation of "AI" so much as a limitation of the nature of these particular distribution matching algorithms. Thinking outside the box is actually exceptionally easy. Thinking outside the box efficiently in ways that are useful (or interesting to humans in the case of art) is possible but very hard.