Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 23:00:11 +0000
From: Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic
Subject: Re: Civ 7
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 19:00:11 -0400
Message-ID: <mmo67j1ufgmp5mhih9a09524jhv19anp49@4ax.com>
References: <v4motf$2ln$7@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> <g3ut6jl08q2rddtfb5fk9r3bgv2tjrjrvr@4ax.com> <v4pcgg$2mm$3@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> <9ki07jl8tq1pi344dnl5kp0akpboesehq6@4ax.com> <v4rchq$i7n$2@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> <uas27j1jg3impqm54lkn9efdm71uovvo6i@4ax.com> <v4sd0s$kln$1@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> <2d547j9ckjd4i8eaeg0t57a9fer5nh0bf9@4ax.com> <v4tsio$tpm$1@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> <4lg57j130c3h3ojpbugbga83lt29973ae0@4ax.com> <v4ul7q$tpm$9@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: 187
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-79zXQcXTOl4eNuKMlytFQDpG1i0bFdPLfi4AEFx+WN9Rg41ss892fwqMxVva0YG6s64vCUKVxZxnkT5!xLIgYnomKckinXrQueh3uM04IMN3DK7C093j8npLqaZrzhlK95GqrFjXZcL+Eoj2Spq+
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: 9899

On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 15:08:18 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/19/2024 1:37 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 08:07:29 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6/19/2024 1:32 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:35:42 -0000 (UTC),
>>>> <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 09:21:33 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/17/2024 4:39 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 15:08:33 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 4:39 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I dunno, you throw out stuff like "artificial means fake" and expect me
>>>>>>>>> to accept that drivel without saying anything?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as I said higher up "But occasionally, it's probably good for the soul
>>>>>>>> to treat myself to an occasional token episode of frivolous time
>>>>>>>> wasting activity?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So believe me when I say I expected absolutely nothing from you, and
>>>>>>>> was not disappointed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ah, so I just fell for a troll?
>>>>>>> true, noone would have earnestly advocated for AI in that way. Should
>>>>>>> have known.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You disqualified yourself from the level of discussion I was initially
>>>>>> offering the moment you revealed that you believed the word
>>>>>> 'artificial' could not be synonymous with 'fake'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Synonyms
>>>>>> --------------
>>>>>> affected
>>>>>> assumed
>>>>>> bogus
>>>>>> contrived
>>>>>> factitious
>>>>>> fake
>>>>>> false
>>>>>> feigned
>>>>>> forced
>>>>>> mechanical
>>>>>> mock
>>>>>> phony
>>>>>> phoney
>>>>>> plastic
>>>>>> pretended
>>>>>> pseudo
>>>>>> put-on
>>>>>> sham
>>>>>> simulated
>>>>>> spurious
>>>>>> strained
>>>>>> unnatural
>>>>>
>>>>> did I say that?
>>>>> maybe reread my comment. But then you are ignoring your own source here
>>>>> as well, because it also can mean unnatural, simulated, or mechanical.
>>>>>
>>>>> But well, I know you are just pretending to argue right now. So we can
>>>>> just agree that you got me good and you don't have to pretend to make
>>>>> these stupid claims anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>> So we both agree that no actual artificial intelligence exists, and we
>>>>> are only talking about advanced algorithms, yes?
>>>>>
>>>>> Then we basically can stop talking here.
>>>>
>>>> Your basic premise is that your own personal definition of AI, which
>>>> is different than that of the rest of the world, is correct.  And as
>>>> long as you continue searching for someone that agrees with your
>>>> definition instead of the mainstream one, I suppose you can turn
>>>> grasping onto hope into a hobby if you like.
>>>>
>>>> But it won't change reality.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Luckily I found you already, so there's that. We already established
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========