Found myself wrapped up in the Utawarerumono visual novels. The first one was originally an adult only game on PC, but the current version cut those scenes out. There’s still a number fan-servicey scenes, but if that doesn’t bug you the story itself gets quite compelling and emotional. Plus it’s a strategy RPG in combat scenes, which I really like. I came across Utawarerumono when looking for more games like Trails.
I’m going to buy a game if it’s good and I like it. “Woke” won’t make a bad game good or a good game bad.
Nonsense! We’ll get loads of sound bites to guffaw over in YouTube!
They’re holding out until they can add another Republican to cancel out the release of the Epstein files.
Well at least he would have been okay with it.
Then it seems that Nintendo is also in the extreme minority by claiming this guy’s efforts have done them any harm. How they won this is beyond me.
Nintendo’s asinine anti-consumer anti-piracy measures are probably causing more harm to the company than this guy ever did.
I might have actually bought a Switch 2 if Nintendo hadn’t pissed me off with their pricing and game cart shenanigans.
The question is still valid, even if the meaning changes.
They never specified who’s security…
But it’s not hard to find examples of similar games that don’t reach server-crashing levels of popularity. Axiom Verge, for one. Beautiful art, runs on anything, affordable, no modern fuckery. It’s also a metroidvania. Not to imply it’s a better game, but I personally enjoyed it way more than Hollow Knight.
I sometimes approach this like I do with students. Using your example, I’d ask it to restate the source, then ask it to read the title of that source directly. If it’s correct, I might ask it to briefly summarize what the source article covers. Then I would ask it to restate what it told me about the source earlier, and to explain where the inconsistency lies. Usually by this time, the AI is accurately pointing out flaws in its prior logic. At that point I ask again if it is 100% sure it didn’t make a mistake, and it might actually concede to having been wrong. Then I tell it to remember how and why it was wrong to avoid similar errors in the future. I don’t know if it actually works, but it makes me feel better about it.
I’m more inclined to believe it’s gotten better at being convincing.
And you can tell clients that it’s just made up and not actual confidence, but they will insist that they need it anyways…
That doesn’t justify flat out making shit up to everyone else, though. If a client is told information is made up but they use it anyway, that’s on the client. Although I’d argue that an LLM shouldn’t be in the business of making shit up unless specifically instructed to do so by the client.
It annoys me that Chat GPT flat out lies to you when it doesn’t know the answer, and doesn’t have any system in place to admit it isn’t sure about something. It just makes it up and tells you like it’s fact.
Statistically probable answers, not facts.
I wouldn’t have subbed to Spotify on my own. I’m inherited into my wife’s family plan. For me the biggest benefit is just discovering new music. I used to have a big MP3 library, but after a couple computer upgrades, they’ve kind of disappeared over the years. Having Spotify there has been really convenient for just listening toto old stuff I’ve lost as well. This said, if my FiL cancels, I probably wouldn’t sub for myself anyway.
Why aren’t Tesla shareholders suing Elon, I wonder?
How do I replicate this myself?
Fair enough. Dems have handily shown us just how competent they are at handling problems such as Trump taking over the courts, the FBI, the FCC, DOGE, illegal tariffs, the Epstein cover up, ICE, voter fraud, voter suppression, and so many others…