theunknownmuncher @ theunknownmuncher @lemmy.world

Posts

4

Comments

815

Joined

1 yr. ago

It's literally just implementation and they're both statistical models, but 👍

If you disagree, explain how. I'll wait

no wonder you hail AI as good

When, exactly, did I? I called them both janky dogshit, but simply pointed out the very real hypocrisy of supporting procedural generation while hating generative AI.

Literally everything you just said applies to procedural generation, except that it is demonic because that's just silly

by your logic, slavery would be excusable. That's the argument you're making.

I'm sorry, we're talking about the implementation of generated content in video games. That only works if it's EQUIVALENT to slavery, it's not (which you yourself said in an attempt to have it both ways lol), so "my logic" does not apply to slavery... Dude.

Yes, of course I did, it would be gross of me to let that slide

Totally valid, mutually conceded. I'd bet we can agree that the current climate of games generally praises procedurally generated content, regardless of how we experienced its history.

👀 SLAVERY??? Come on man. Outrageous.

theunknownmuncher thinks it's somehow inconsistent to be against generative AI while being ok with procedural generation, which implies that they think they're equivalent in some way.

It's genuinely wild that you wrote this and then minutes later tried to make a "comparison but totally NOT equivalency, guys" to SLAVERY. 🤦🤦🤦

EDIT: btw, not that it matters at this point, but that's not what a simile is. It is analogy, though, but a super flawed and shitty one

Your previous comment proved my point, thanks

both are used to produce more content with less effort. There's your equivalence.

Bingo.

As if the reason people don't like generative AI is because it makes bad games.

Nice, point proven. 😎 If it doesn't make games bad, then the complaints are simply invalid and bandwagoning, and developers cannot be faulted for using it. LOL

I'm not and it's always been consistently praised.

LOL care to educate us on why a statistical model is unacceptable while a procedural model (also statistical 🙃) is acceptable, then? 🤔 I'll wait.

(reality: it's a minor implementation detail and has no relevance to the user)

And yet you couldn't describe one aspect of the differences 🤔

Super weird take, honestly. Procedurally generated content gets no hate, despite it being janky dogshit, too.

EDIT: lol your downvotes don't make your opinion more consistent

Jokes aside, no they aren't "defending Reddit from AI" they are defending exclusivity on monetizing their users and their user's content

What's gone wrong?

!!! --> CAPITALISM <-- !!!

Also it's a joke to pretend the country that was founded on the genocide of native people and slavery was ever "we the people" at any point in time, and to push this blatant lie is to erase the history of millions of people.

The method revealed in my comment's link bypasses app permissions in the phone OS.

If you have any Zuckerberg products installed on your phone, all of your browsing behavior is being tracked. These apps should never be installed.

https://localmess.github.io/

Lol extremely untrue

A LOT of people were educated by pornography and do not communicate with their partners. Literally no clue what they're doing.

Oops replied to the wrong comment

I find the pouches really easy to quit cold turkey, so there's not really a need to ween off once you've switched to them, but it is an option with pouches ranging from stupidly high to almost no nicotine content. It does suck for the first day not using them, but by day 3 I've completely forgotten they exist. Totally different experience quitting pouches vs a vape.

I've quit and picked up the habit several times, mainly because they're so easy to quit that I don't see a huge harm in using them again after a long period without. I wouldn't touch a vape again because it was such an effort and pain to quit.

Also nicotine isn't a carcinogen (tobacco is), and nicotine pouches are not linked to any cancer risk. Nicotine is basically as harmful as caffeine.

Nicotine products in general have been linked to reproductive harms such as stillbirth, premature birth, and low birth weight. Conversely, non-tobacco-based nicotine pouches (also known as "nic pouches") are classified as non-carcinogenic since nicotine itself is not a carcinogen. However, they are still harmful to cardiovascular health due to their nicotine content, and are associated with moderately higher risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, and reproductive harms.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus

Nicotine itself is currently classified as non-carcinogenic according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and according to the Royal College of Physicians nicotine in itself is not a hazardous drug. In turn, it is hypothesized that if nicotine can be delivered without tobacco and smoke inhalation, most, if not all of the harm of smoking can be avoided. However, if not carcinogenic, nicotine is still moderately harmful to cardiovascular health, therefore long-term use of non-tobacco nicotine pouches very likely causes higher risks for cardiovascular diseases, stroke, and reproductive harms.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine_pouch