All of them are regularly used in board games and video games, so I have to assume the author is not a huge gamer.
In Lords of Xidit, you have to remember each time a player puts something in the central bank to time when it's worth getting it.
In the just freshly out zelda, you can cross ceilings, but since you are often in caves, you have to approximate the volume of the above structure to figure out where you exit.
In the exceptionally good "Inscryption", you win/lose by tilting a balance 5 ticks in the other direction. There is a bonus item, pliers, that will let you pull one of your teeth out, and put it in the balance to add one tick. The animation and noise are sick.
And it's the mark of great games to have great gameplay, so you can be sure game creators are trying them all. We are not in the 80' anymore, games are crazy.
Give a try to Ark Nova, Great Western Trail or Mind Bug and you will see how vast and diverse the possibilities of gameplay are. That's on board games, so you can image what happens with a computer where you have very little limits. The indie scene is fantastic, I haven't had that much fun since the 90'.
This is how you know it is different. Because the people that were not treating mongo, graphql, microservices, the block chain, and web 3 as miracles are impressed by llm. Just like people that are not tech saavy.
There's hype and then there's overhype. We are clearly in the overhype category for LLMs, but there's absolutely no doubt they are going to change things.
In the 90s, the web was overhyped in the short run and under-hyped in the long run. We wrongly predicted 100% of people would do their shopping on the internet by 2005, but never dreamed Somali market traders would use it to discuss the price of fish, or that foreign hackers would use it to influence US elections.
People say it's a terrible time to be a creator, but I just started again to blog 2 months ago after a decade of pause because I believe it's just the opposite.
With the abysmal noise/signal ratio plaguing the web, there is tremendous value in having a source of information manually crafted by someone you trust.
How do you trust anyone after GPT4? You can't tell how much they relied on the model. And maybe some things AI does are good - it could generate writing style improvement advice, counterpoints to your ideas, help find mistakes, help with formatting complex math, etc.
Ultimately, it's a big problems for readers, but it's great for writers.
Once a reader has validated a writer (you like the style, the context helps you and proved to have high value), your attachment to the author is even higher than before, because the cost of finding anything else of equal quality is skyrocketing.
I've been given a lot of attention to find the right fruit and vegetable provider for years since we have abundance but most of it taste like crap. I'm extremely loyal to the farmers I buy from, and I buy at a premium from them. Despite the fact I'm always trying to find new ones, it's very rare I do.
It will be the same with writers.
Even if GPT starts to include my articles in it's training data set, I can still provide a lot of value with tooling, contextualization, integration, coming up with something new, etc.
To me, GPT is only making my work shine even more. And it helps me tremendously when I code, so I just love it.
Depends on the industry. ChatGPT output is horrendous on a lot of technical topics. Equally, whether a thought is something new and novel, and even demonstrating/documenting something new or interesting.
It's also not great at providing an entertaining style, give you context, make sure you have per-requisite, double checking there is not error in what it gives you, etc.
But this will change in the future, so I would say those are temporary advantages for us only.
For most people, trust is a social problem, not a technical one. Almost nobody is going to care you work is signed, people will just check if they still enjoy the style, if it's still quality, if they still get value out of it, etc. And if one day they feel betrayed, you will be excluded from the pool.
Sites like HN will make the pool an more and more exclusive one to get in. I predict moderation is going to get tighter and tighter everywhere.
Therefore, creating a reputation and getting into the club early will prove a tremendous boon.
It would be like figuring out what Steve Job, Usain Bolt, or Killian Jornet do. It would be interesting and helpful, but you will not be able to replicate it by following a recipe.
It's not, because the site tells you there is a perfect answers. On this card, it tells you should ban it.
OP didn't miss anything, the website is not subtly showing you how content moderation is difficult, it's telling you: we want to moderate it that way and you are failing or succeeding. That's not a lesson. That's gameplay.
I stopped listening to the radio because of ads. There are podcast I don't listen to anymore because sponsors are so invasive. I installed sponsor block (which I would gladly pay for) to may youtube bearable. I pay for spotify for peace of mind.
I love youtube, but If I can't watch it without being pestered by ads and without giving all my information to google, I will simply do something else.
I would be ok paying for youtube premium if Google were actually not abusing their customers at any chance they get. But since they will spy on you, delete your accounts, cancel services, encourage take down abuses, I really don't want to put my whole life in their hand.
> YouTube premium perfectly showcases why ads dominate the internet, because even when there is a paid option for a service much cheaper than any alternative, people do not want to pay
Absolutly wrong. I pay for spotify to not have ads, I pay for netflix despite the fact I can download torrents because of the benefit of the service. Hell, I pay for Telegram premium and chatgpt, both of which have very good free offer without ads!
But GAFAMS have exhausted our trust, so they don't get the same treatment.
I will never pay for a Google service, because that would mean having a google account tie to a payment system. And Google spies, collect data, close accounts and services on a whim and has terrible support.
It doesn't respect their customers, and so they lost our will to give them money.
Plus, even if you pay, you have no way to know if they are going to respect their own contract anymore because they don't care and have no consequence for messing up.
You pay for an amazon product? Can be a scam and amazon will not prevent that. You pay for twitter blue to see less ads? We just learned this month tweeter blue users say exactly as many ads as regular users.
> So what is the alternative?
We don't want an alternative. Those companies made billions with their short term abusing policies, now they finally pay some price.
Good.
For once the market is behaving as a regulating force as it should, which is not often nowadays.
In Lords of Xidit, you have to remember each time a player puts something in the central bank to time when it's worth getting it.
In the just freshly out zelda, you can cross ceilings, but since you are often in caves, you have to approximate the volume of the above structure to figure out where you exit.
In the exceptionally good "Inscryption", you win/lose by tilting a balance 5 ticks in the other direction. There is a bonus item, pliers, that will let you pull one of your teeth out, and put it in the balance to add one tick. The animation and noise are sick.
And it's the mark of great games to have great gameplay, so you can be sure game creators are trying them all. We are not in the 80' anymore, games are crazy.
Give a try to Ark Nova, Great Western Trail or Mind Bug and you will see how vast and diverse the possibilities of gameplay are. That's on board games, so you can image what happens with a computer where you have very little limits. The indie scene is fantastic, I haven't had that much fun since the 90'.