It’s not the tool that’s the problem. It’s the capitalists controlling it.
The luddites didn’t oppose technology just for the sake of it. They opposed the use of it to displace workers. And there is absolutely a role for AI in all this that doesn’t involve anyone losing their jobs, if we can change who is in control of it.
Personally, I’m looking forward to seeing what can be done with the tech to make each person’s experience unique, with bespoke quests and dialogue. Maybe one day playing a game like Skyrim for 10 years doesn’t have to mean playing the same quests over and over. It’ll be cool comparing how our playthroughs differ from each other, as the AI changes the game to suit each person.
seeing what can be done with the tech to make each person’s experience unique, with bespoke quests and dialogue.
That being possible would be fundamentally a level up from what they are now. I’ve read a paper on this someone linked in a Lemmy thread a year or so ago.
Maybe one day playing a game like Skyrim for 10 years doesn’t have to mean playing the same quests over and over.
I think a more manual approach would work, of a world model like Crusader Kings has, with traits and ties and opinions and random events of NPCs between each other and towards the player, and that AI being used simply to rephrase and slightly adjust descriptions and sequences of events - then maybe.
But consider how many NPCs that means and how many others they meet in their simulated lives, and how hard it would be to debug a story line to ensure that it’s always playable.
An LLM is not, strictly speaking, necessary here, and if used, doesn’t make it easier.
I understand where a lot of the opposition to AI comes from. I get it. But when you’re so deep in the opposition that you’re saying it’ll never do thing that it’s already doing, you’re obviously just pushing an agenda without facts backing it up.
This is like arguing calculators sully math, because it should be done with an abacus.
It’s not the tool that’s the problem. It’s the capitalists controlling it.
The luddites didn’t oppose technology just for the sake of it. They opposed the use of it to displace workers. And there is absolutely a role for AI in all this that doesn’t involve anyone losing their jobs, if we can change who is in control of it.
Personally, I’m looking forward to seeing what can be done with the tech to make each person’s experience unique, with bespoke quests and dialogue. Maybe one day playing a game like Skyrim for 10 years doesn’t have to mean playing the same quests over and over. It’ll be cool comparing how our playthroughs differ from each other, as the AI changes the game to suit each person.
That being possible would be fundamentally a level up from what they are now. I’ve read a paper on this someone linked in a Lemmy thread a year or so ago.
I think a more manual approach would work, of a world model like Crusader Kings has, with traits and ties and opinions and random events of NPCs between each other and towards the player, and that AI being used simply to rephrase and slightly adjust descriptions and sequences of events - then maybe.
But consider how many NPCs that means and how many others they meet in their simulated lives, and how hard it would be to debug a story line to ensure that it’s always playable.
An LLM is not, strictly speaking, necessary here, and if used, doesn’t make it easier.
No need to discuss it in future tense. There’s already mods that incorporate AI into Skyrim NPC’s. It’s impressive as hell.
Removed by mod
I understand where a lot of the opposition to AI comes from. I get it. But when you’re so deep in the opposition that you’re saying it’ll never do thing that it’s already doing, you’re obviously just pushing an agenda without facts backing it up.
This is like arguing calculators sully math, because it should be done with an abacus.
Removed by mod
Ok, John Connor. Maybe chill out a bit.
Removed by mod