Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 14:39:06 +0000
From: Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic
Subject: Re: Civ 7
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 10:39:05 -0400
Message-ID: <g3ut6jl08q2rddtfb5fk9r3bgv2tjrjrvr@4ax.com>
References: <u0mj6jdsl3u9lbv5d2i45tl936a5lbjl9l@4ax.com> <v4esfr$29m9u$1@dont-email.me> <8nto6j94rd5pjkni2ruudppkpf55g23cdi@4ax.com> <v4hvt0$305sh$1@dont-email.me> <2irq6j1mnkqfouorj84rm45d2vv51cc5k3@4ax.com> <v4jspg$tm3$1@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> <2c1r6j9ttrqjbhlt14p46g2abbslsitsla@4ax.com> <v4kpqa$r8q$3@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> <jj3s6j1j0hthljgrgl9jdauts9gmcrr422@4ax.com> <v4l55n$chq$5@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> <ecbs6jp8a4g0fgcm8kgauook7rpdkggb53@4ax.com> <v4motf$2ln$7@ereborbbs.duckdns.org>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.0/32.1071
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 93
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-MAPzZOx83UWDPdJyimeriP3C4q+hTqdfAUGojwMp5Tg9BoMXAyHINW6ItmC4DINom5vij5jfGFxL6lg!XiGAea5QBfjuHq71kVGCycKN/aP88scdWklFkAgT+NzeWvRTP/zXpzBEOIlXEXXdaYIC
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 5651

On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 15:21:52 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/16/2024 2:11 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 00:38:54 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6/16/2024 12:00 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 19:25:00 -0000 (UTC),
>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 11:09:38 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:42:32 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 7:02 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:08:09 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:21 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Real AI (not what most gamers have historically called AI) integrated
>>>>>>>>>>>> into dialog / behavior / relationships with other civilizations is
>>>>>>>>>>>> where the franchise should go next.  It's a mistake if that's not done
>>>>>>>>>>>> in Civ 7.  And if it's not done, it's only a matter of time before a
>>>>>>>>>>>> competitor gets there first.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> so far there is no real AI. Just stuff they hype up as AI.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Look up YT vids for a game called BodyCam.  It introduces a level of
>>>>>>>>>> immersive visual realism to the tactical shooter genre that to my
>>>>>>>>>> knowledge hasn't been done before, and it supposed came to market via
>>>>>>>>>> a couple of kids (well a 17 year old and a 20 year old).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Someone will do something equally as disruptive to the strategy genre
>>>>>>>>>> utilizing real AI soon, and if the Civ series is caught sleeping, it
>>>>>>>>>> will become irrelevant overnight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There still is no real AI
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Years ago, I realized the juice simply was not worth the squeeze
>>>>>>>> whenever I allowed myself to get baited into pendantic black holes of
>>>>>>>> opinion-presented-as-fact-discussion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul to treat myself to
>>>>>>>> an occasional token episode of frivolous time wasting activity?  ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I'm curious what aspect of the current state of what is
>>>>>>>> colloquially referred to as AI fails to meet your personal definition
>>>>>>>> of "real"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> when it actually manages to fit the definition of an AI, and not one
>>>>>>> written by the people that are just trying to sell you their next
>>>>>>> hypecycle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be clear, I'm completely uninterested in strawman arguments, so I
>>>>>> am asking.... specifically.... what aspects of the current state of AI
>>>>>> do not qualify as "real"?
>>>>>
>>>>> is it intelligence?
>>>>>
>>>>> is it actually intelligence, or is it someone hyping up an advanced
>>>>> algorithm into something it isn't?
>>>>>
>>>>> the problem is of course that intelligence itself is not that well
>>>>> defined, and that this helps the usual scammers to claim that something
>>>>> is artificial "intelligence" when it's merely an advanced mechanism.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand why you're separating the word intelligence from
>>>> artificial.
>>>>
>>>> Artificial means fake.  Fake Intelligence.  So you're asking for
>>>> something that's Real and Fake at the same time if I understand
>>>> correctly?
>>>>
>>>> Real intelligence is playing a multiplayer game against a human.
>>>>
>>>> Computers are not capable of real intelligence, only the artificial
>>>> variety.
>>>>
>>>> "Real Fakel Intelligence" is an oxymoron; thus the quest for it is a
>>>> self-defeating situation.
>>>
>>> no, artificial means "made by humans"
>>> is a building not a structure because it's artificial?
>> 
>> Where did you find a building not made by humans?
>
>caves exist, are a structure, and have been used by humans.

Answers to questions I never asked is a prime example of why I stopped
wasting time on discussions like this, given the current state of
Usenet.