| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<g3ut6jl08q2rddtfb5fk9r3bgv2tjrjrvr@4ax.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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.