Got me there

Unfortunately unless you are a tiny niche community that isn’t ever targeted by spam or idiots (and how common is that really), moderators are a necessary evil. You probably don’t hate moderators. You probably hate bad/aggressive/biased/etc moderators. Or maybe sometimes you are the problem, I don’t know. It is not a problem with an easy solution. Usually large forums with no moderation become quickly unbearable to most people. And then moderators become in turn unbearable to some people.

Maybe a trusted AI can do a better job at this - like give it the community rules and ask it to enforce them objectively, transparently, and dispassionately, unless a certain number of participants complain, in which case it can reverse its decision and learn from that.

Hey thanks, both AW1 and Control are games I might pick up again. Didn’t hate them, they just didn’t really hook me.

I found the pacing of the first few chapters in the first Alan Wake sublime, in terms of storytelling. The gameplay frustrated me on the other hand, became quickly monotonous and tedious for me. So I only played like a third of the game, much as I liked the story and was curious to see where it went. Then Control I was left completely unmoved by. So I’ve been hesitating to take up the second Alan Wake, basically because I didn’t much like the first iteration, or Control, which I’ve heard is somehow connected. Maybe I’m missing out. Or maybe these games appeal only to a certain audience.

Never used this. Never cared for it 🤷🏻‍♂️

Do you use the integrated AI in new versions of Excel or do you ask ChatGPT or some other AI to write it out for you?

Much of this looks good. But some of it looks painfully mid/generic. Might still be fun.

It is a mess, which is why I thought it’s intentional to make it difficult to apportion your dose of chocolate, in effect making you eat more. And all this stuff about inequality sounds like the worst BS possible.

BG3 vibes anyone?

Thanks for the review. Disappointing to be sure. I was hoping to play it at some point and that it wouldn’t suck as much as people say it does. Or that they would turn it around in time.

Sometimes I wonder whether Starfield truly deserves all the bad publicity or whether people are also still upset because it became an Xbox exclusive and that is clouding their judgement. I know it does affect me for one. I got a ps5 for gaming and I’m automatically much less interested in anything that isn’t on the platform. And I was of course very disappointed when Microsoft outright bought all these huge IPs and made them exclusive to Xbox.

I’m waiting for the ultimate edition that will include everything here

Hmm I am not sure I understand what you’re saying or that you understood anything I said. Maybe we are talking past each other. Nevermind, let’s forget about incels. Main point is whatever your preferences, framing them positively helps.

Preferences are fine. It still matters how you express them. In the current zeitgeist, with inceldom being a thing, the way these preferences were expressed smacked of that. The fact that you want to defend this specific trifecta of otherwise completely unrelated preferences, claiming they lead to a better life, makes me think you might be an incel yourself, or maybe just a conservative who’s consumed a few too many such videos promoting “family values” and purporting that these are threatened by a woman’s weight, or her having to raise a child on her own, or her seeking love and attention on dating apps. Truth is these are pretty much unrelated to whether one values family and to each other. It’s just a collection of caricatures, stereotypes, and cautionary tales circulating in conservative circles. If all one can think of when asked for their preferences regarding a partner are these known talking points, it is a little suspect. FWIW, I do not think we should marginalize conservatives. But I do think we should marginalize misogyny.

Well first these are the frequent talking points of incels when they harp on what they consider “low value females”. If you find yourself constantly repeating such devaluing talking points, maybe a break from the internet would do you good. Secondly, and more generally, it is usually more attractive to talk about the things you love than the things you hate. Unless you have already established that you and the other person hate the same things, then you can bond over that too.

This looks more like a scythe that doubles as a weapon to me

This thread is like a lesson in the importance of x and y axes range in time series plots

There’s a movie about that. Well, it’s about high-tech incubator eggs that promise relief from the toils of pregnancy so mothers can go on working (so they can afford said proprietary incubator eggs). Not a great movie, but it was interesting. Don’t remember the title unfortunately.

Granted, our tendency towards anthropomorphism is near ubiquitous. But it would be disingenuous to claim that it does not play out in very specific and very important ways in how we speak and think about LLMs, given that they are capable of producing very convincing imitations of human behavior. And as such also produce a very convincing impression of agency. As if they actually do decide things. Very much unlike dice.

The AI did not “decide” anything. It has no will. And no understanding of the consequences of any particular “decision”. But I guess “probabilistic model produces erroneous output” wouldn’t get as many views. The same point could still be made about not placing too much trust on the output of such models. Let’s stop supporting this weird anthropomorphizing of LLMs. In fact we should probably become much more discerning in using the term “AI”, because it alludes to a general intelligence akin to human intelligence with all the paraphernalia of humanity: consciousness, will, emotions, morality, sociality, duplicity, etc.