I recently started a fresh NG+2 game, via a save editor, this wasn't the place that gave me the most pushback (probably because i was already at lvl 100 something, because of all the extra spuls), it was heides tower of flame, since then everything went pretty smooth when you do your best to play smart.
Funnily enough, while the areas are harder, invasions are easier since i over level, probably shouldn't play online though but i just didn't feel like messing with it.
It is an enjoyable way to play the game though, if you've patience for a challenge run.
The review process is all wrong if something like this is ever on the table as a single PR*.
Big changes like this were made before, and knowing how to split the work (or at least trying to work it out) used to be part of the job.
Hopefully, strong unions and worker involvement can remedy this, given we change our work culture to be closer to what projects like SQLITE and FFMPEG have (noting, of course, the fact these are FOSS, and made by volunteers, yet are very dependable), slower and stable development cycle that prioritizes high quality work that people can actually depend on and trust.
As in one single PR you're expected to read, instead of one backed by tests and the like.
Yeah, older games require a bit of tinkering, the bigger the game's community, the more likely it is documented, i play modded Morrowind and the process was rather simple, albeit very involved.
online-focused games should generally be a lot harder to install, so I understand the frustration, but it's not an issue of installing the OS itself, just installing a game in an emulated environment, and using the correct settings, which shouldn't be too different from emulating consoles, it makes it a bit easier to think about it that way.
Installed CachyOS half a year ago, the setup was short, involved, but no constant tweaking, my previous laptop was a Mint, same story, the installation process was made very simple and seamless a long while ago, unless you're purposely trying something complex, that is.
But in this case the use of "AI" means "LLM chatbots", nobody is really making an argument against other kinds of AI, like what is used to detect cancer (there is an argument to be made about having a black box in a medical context, but this is not the place for it).
LLM chatbots are designed to isolate you from the people around you, from other people online and from actual sources of knowledge, making it harder to build people power and actual community.
It is pretty inherent to these chatbots too, as they are basically a replacement to search engine (which themselves were replacements to indeces), otherwise they don't serve a real purpose, that is to say there is no well defined problem it is a solution too.
If LLM's don't have a well-defined problem to solve, how does one misuse it, if they are not for "direct calculations" you keep talking about, what are LLM's for?
Also there is a point to make that if a tool is mostly "misused" then it is a bad tool, though I'm not sure it applies since you first need to define misuse.
I've given you a few problems that aren't capitalism specific, I'm not going to recount them, if i was more rude I'd suggest getting an LLM to fetch a few bullet points, but it's more healthy to just take a few more minutes to re-read what i just took time out of my day for you all to read.
And the reason you don't see me blaming other tools is just because this was your only interaction with me, I'm learning software engineering, because i like the subject, and in software almost all we do is complain about tools, the documentation for said tools, the setup required to use a tool and the like, critiquing work is part of what makes an engineer, that's how we get better, usually though, i don't need to argue that something is not even a tool.
The neat part of a screwdriver is that i can say: "this is a screwdriver, it drives screws", and mean it, because there are implications if it doesn't, like where it will probably be broken, and what needs fixing.
Going from "this isn't comparable to a calculator/algorithm/book" to "therefore it is a tool of the Epstein class" wasn't part of my original comment, LLM's are a tool of the bourgeois because they destroy community building, and isolate people, which directly hinders building actual power.
And while you don't see why LLM's would be used in calculations, a lot of newer students in universities think they have a good reason to, i have to deal with that as a fellow student, i want you to think about the consequences of this technology: I can't really work on a problem with anyone else, if i need someone to justify a step in a formal proof, they most likely will go "gemini this, gpt that, actually i have a local model yada yada" and i really wish the local model people weren't the most annoying of the bunch, but it's probably bias on my part since people around me know my stance on FOSS, in another era, maybe i would have gotten "this theorem appears in this and that book/lecture/presentation/website", but as of now i don't get this luxury.
This is a prime example of what this technology does right now, to people who should "know better", as in studying computer science or software engineering, and a close friend tells me the same is in maths, and yes even the people studying about LLM's, so safe to say even if people knew how these work, they would "misuse" them, so not really a capitalism specific problem.
Books being destroyed is not a capitalism problem, it's a power problem, and it wouldn't disappear in an anarchist society, companies who develop LLM's want control and power, not specifically money, and they know they can get that by stealing information from the public (stealing from the commons, not as in intellect property), and making the public dependant on an alternative they control, in capitalism this means money, but only because money is power, natural consequence of this is destruction of books.
About bugs, LLM's don't have a well defined problem they solve, so you can't say "this test failed, therefore i can reverse engineer how it fails and point at a wrong instruction", you also can't say that because the math may be correct all throughout the calculation, with LLM's you don't get an incorrect answer, you get an answer you don't like, which means you need to train (or re-train) a model to get "better" parameter weights, by "better" i mean perceived to be better because you can't really comprehend the amount of weights themselves and their purpose, meaning again you can't just pick one and change its value and also know the consequences of it.
So no, whatever this output you don't like is, it's not a bug, also note how i didn't have to even mentioned reproducibility in all this.
I won't elaborate on why an LLM is different to a car or power tool, because my previous explanation applies to hardware problems as well, and what i said about having a well defined problem and solution also applies, and while i really am trying to be serious and explain, i feel like you really don't by asking me to explain something trivial, i assume you didn't mean for me to take it this way and i take no offense, but i thought you should be aware of how this looks.
Take my personal experience as an example, assume i need to make some heavy calculations for a group assignment or whatever, if someone doesn't understand how i reached a specific value, i can show steps, and show i did the calculation on a calculator, if i did do something incorrect, contrast with the use of LLM's in which you are likely to get LLM output copy pasted as "reasoning", meaning you can't trust what your partner says and have to verify everything from first principals because no one is going to make the job shorter.
In an actual workplace, this pits workers against each other, easy to see why, it takes no effort to make garbage for someone else to verify, obviously this will result in alienation from other workers, more than someone like me feels alienation from fellow students.
The same applies to books, articles and blogs, let's take another example from the field of software since it is what I'm familiar with: one of the main ways i improve my craft is with books, articles, blogs and videos of conferences which document how real, hard problems were solved, each of these points me at a person who labored at writing the article/blog/presentation, the people involved in the teams, the people who are inspiration to those people and so on. LLM's just don't do that, they can't* give a source, they take the problems and the solutions out of their context, which makes reasoning harder, they can't point you at "extra reading".
Can't as in that's not part of the defined output, something something solutions are not well defined.
Also to your point about scrolls, the alternative to scrolls is something that contains the same information, just stored in a different manner, which reminds me, i don't remember when was the last time i listened to music from a CD, they, and scrolls, are, once again, not comparable to LLM's.
I don't agree with the original wording of the person you replied to, but i can do my best to explain still.
Firstly, the obvious meaning for the term "AI" here is LLM's, this makes the following points clear:
Calculators use abstract syntax tree parsing, a small battery, and perhaps a small solar cell, making them efficient for making in-place calculations, completely unlike LLM's which are probabilistic and inefficient for in-place calculations, even disregarding accuracy.
Books are currently being destroyed in the process of developing LLM's, I'll assume you've heard the news so I'll avoid preaching, but i may elaborate further if you'd like.
Algorithms are used to give deterministic correct answers, similar to heuristics which give likely-correct answers within specific constraints, both are instruction sets for computers, both are unlike LLM's, which are black boxes, meaning there are no "bugs" ever by definition, and triaging problems boils down to understanding the (absurdly large) training data, avoiding that is the entire reason LLM's were created to begin with.
the rest are not really that relevant, and I'm sure you can understand the point I'm trying to make.
Also note: while i make the distinction from LLM's to other forms of machine learning (and the like) they do share some core problems like being black boxes, which have a potential to be very bad in specific contexts in which you need to know why you got a specific answer to a question.
Why is this technology inherently anti-worker and hierarchical?
Anarchism, in all its forms (or at least all that i can think of on the spot), rely mainly on community, inter-personal relationships, and the union of means and ends, LLM's form an incentive to not make connections with other people, to not rely on other people's expertise, and sometimes to even doubt your own.
I'm not even giving this justice as these tools are trained to speak like a person, this has psychological implications, I'm sure you've heard the term "AI psychosis" before, this term may be medically dubious, but it does point at a real concern, this technology already isolates people, the vulnerable of us, and undermines expertise and community.
The way these models are trained, requires consuming (again, absurd) amounts of data, that can only be aquired via exploitation, alienation of labor from worker (as in no work gets properly credited, and that the LLM's are used and marketed as a replacement for actual sources of knowledge and expertise), and destruction of knowledge, as when you replace a source of knowledge, the people maintaining it may choose to stop doing so (via perceived obsolescence).
If we actually want to reduce the demand for corporate LLM's, the answer is not FOSS LLM's, as much as i love FOSS software, this technology only really drives us apart, we need to do it the tried and true method: building community, mutual aid, mutual responsibility, we need to perserve sources of knowledge and expertise, we need to keep expertise valuable, and we need trust, this requires community.
Apology for the length of this, in short: The demand for AI is a spook, go do community work.
You can claim the amount of men suffering from violence is only larger if you exclude specific kinds of violence, and the reason women point out the "violence against women" problem is more due to the fact that there is a discernable kind of violence, specifically perpetrated against women (usually by men, and usually by people close to them) because they are women, and is mostly ignored as a specific societal issue.
The violence men suffer from is usually generic, in the "everyone suffers from it, but men do more" kind of way, which is why fascist politicians allow themselves to act like it is a reason police should get more funding, weaponry and deregulation, knowing that their target audience, vulnerable/afraid/hateful men will show their support.
There are issues unique to women and they should be allowed the space to formulate them without having to have a caveat pertaining to things outside their experience, we should too, but considering a cause for many of our problems is other men, that makes our job significantly harder than simply participating in a woman's discussion about their problems.
Well put, they did ask specific questions about their social lives, which probably is a bit better than to ask about a person's perceived feelings of loneliness.
But that too has limitations, and i wonder if there can even be a better method.
I'll attempt to give a more hand wavey approach, but one that is hopefully easier to understand.
First, implement:
\\ find first index of `c` within string `str`.
\\ returns true if found, sets `out` to result.
\\ otherwise returns false.
bool find(char* str, size_t len, char c, size_t* out)
Now this can be used in a loop, where you supply a slice starting at the last line (or the beginning of the slice, on the first iteration), where len is the length of the original string minus the amount of characters consumed (index of the beginning of the slice, relative to the start of the original string).
Note this requires calculating the string length beforehand, if this is a c-string (as in null terminated).
This should be relatively simpler to understand and implement than what the standard library supplies, sadly the C standard library is not easy to use or very reliable, so you'll mostly have to make do yourself.
I hope this helped, I'm currently away from a computer so i can't give a code example, good luck.
Seems like a good policy in general, open to changes, i hope this will make reviewers' job easier, considering how hard reviewing PR's for a university project with partners who insist on using LLMs for almost everything, i can barely imagine how frustrating this all must be.
Ooh ooh, tell them to condemn hamas next!
I had the GOTY edition for the PS3, couldn't ever get close to finishing the game, it would freeze whenever I'd get close to starting a DLC :(
I recently started a fresh NG+2 game, via a save editor, this wasn't the place that gave me the most pushback (probably because i was already at lvl 100 something, because of all the extra spuls), it was heides tower of flame, since then everything went pretty smooth when you do your best to play smart.
Funnily enough, while the areas are harder, invasions are easier since i over level, probably shouldn't play online though but i just didn't feel like messing with it.
It is an enjoyable way to play the game though, if you've patience for a challenge run.
The review process is all wrong if something like this is ever on the table as a single PR*.
Big changes like this were made before, and knowing how to split the work (or at least trying to work it out) used to be part of the job.
Hopefully, strong unions and worker involvement can remedy this, given we change our work culture to be closer to what projects like SQLITE and FFMPEG have (noting, of course, the fact these are FOSS, and made by volunteers, yet are very dependable), slower and stable development cycle that prioritizes high quality work that people can actually depend on and trust.
Honestly it's worse, it's not like it is a super power to use it, it produces garbage results, especially for people who proclaim to want to learn.
Yeah, older games require a bit of tinkering, the bigger the game's community, the more likely it is documented, i play modded Morrowind and the process was rather simple, albeit very involved.
online-focused games should generally be a lot harder to install, so I understand the frustration, but it's not an issue of installing the OS itself, just installing a game in an emulated environment, and using the correct settings, which shouldn't be too different from emulating consoles, it makes it a bit easier to think about it that way.
Installed CachyOS half a year ago, the setup was short, involved, but no constant tweaking, my previous laptop was a Mint, same story, the installation process was made very simple and seamless a long while ago, unless you're purposely trying something complex, that is.
AI != LLM != LLM chatbots.
But in this case the use of "AI" means "LLM chatbots", nobody is really making an argument against other kinds of AI, like what is used to detect cancer (there is an argument to be made about having a black box in a medical context, but this is not the place for it).
LLM chatbots are designed to isolate you from the people around you, from other people online and from actual sources of knowledge, making it harder to build people power and actual community.
It is pretty inherent to these chatbots too, as they are basically a replacement to search engine (which themselves were replacements to indeces), otherwise they don't serve a real purpose, that is to say there is no well defined problem it is a solution too.
If LLM's don't have a well-defined problem to solve, how does one misuse it, if they are not for "direct calculations" you keep talking about, what are LLM's for?
Also there is a point to make that if a tool is mostly "misused" then it is a bad tool, though I'm not sure it applies since you first need to define misuse.
I've given you a few problems that aren't capitalism specific, I'm not going to recount them, if i was more rude I'd suggest getting an LLM to fetch a few bullet points, but it's more healthy to just take a few more minutes to re-read what i just took time out of my day for you all to read.
And the reason you don't see me blaming other tools is just because this was your only interaction with me, I'm learning software engineering, because i like the subject, and in software almost all we do is complain about tools, the documentation for said tools, the setup required to use a tool and the like, critiquing work is part of what makes an engineer, that's how we get better, usually though, i don't need to argue that something is not even a tool.
The neat part of a screwdriver is that i can say: "this is a screwdriver, it drives screws", and mean it, because there are implications if it doesn't, like where it will probably be broken, and what needs fixing.
You don't need to be a dick about math just because billionaires use everything, including math, as a justification for their bullshit.
Going from "this isn't comparable to a calculator/algorithm/book" to "therefore it is a tool of the Epstein class" wasn't part of my original comment, LLM's are a tool of the bourgeois because they destroy community building, and isolate people, which directly hinders building actual power.
And while you don't see why LLM's would be used in calculations, a lot of newer students in universities think they have a good reason to, i have to deal with that as a fellow student, i want you to think about the consequences of this technology: I can't really work on a problem with anyone else, if i need someone to justify a step in a formal proof, they most likely will go "gemini this, gpt that, actually i have a local model yada yada" and i really wish the local model people weren't the most annoying of the bunch, but it's probably bias on my part since people around me know my stance on FOSS, in another era, maybe i would have gotten "this theorem appears in this and that book/lecture/presentation/website", but as of now i don't get this luxury.
This is a prime example of what this technology does right now, to people who should "know better", as in studying computer science or software engineering, and a close friend tells me the same is in maths, and yes even the people studying about LLM's, so safe to say even if people knew how these work, they would "misuse" them, so not really a capitalism specific problem.
Books being destroyed is not a capitalism problem, it's a power problem, and it wouldn't disappear in an anarchist society, companies who develop LLM's want control and power, not specifically money, and they know they can get that by stealing information from the public (stealing from the commons, not as in intellect property), and making the public dependant on an alternative they control, in capitalism this means money, but only because money is power, natural consequence of this is destruction of books.
About bugs, LLM's don't have a well defined problem they solve, so you can't say "this test failed, therefore i can reverse engineer how it fails and point at a wrong instruction", you also can't say that because the math may be correct all throughout the calculation, with LLM's you don't get an incorrect answer, you get an answer you don't like, which means you need to train (or re-train) a model to get "better" parameter weights, by "better" i mean perceived to be better because you can't really comprehend the amount of weights themselves and their purpose, meaning again you can't just pick one and change its value and also know the consequences of it. So no, whatever this output you don't like is, it's not a bug, also note how i didn't have to even mentioned reproducibility in all this.
I won't elaborate on why an LLM is different to a car or power tool, because my previous explanation applies to hardware problems as well, and what i said about having a well defined problem and solution also applies, and while i really am trying to be serious and explain, i feel like you really don't by asking me to explain something trivial, i assume you didn't mean for me to take it this way and i take no offense, but i thought you should be aware of how this looks.
Take my personal experience as an example, assume i need to make some heavy calculations for a group assignment or whatever, if someone doesn't understand how i reached a specific value, i can show steps, and show i did the calculation on a calculator, if i did do something incorrect, contrast with the use of LLM's in which you are likely to get LLM output copy pasted as "reasoning", meaning you can't trust what your partner says and have to verify everything from first principals because no one is going to make the job shorter. In an actual workplace, this pits workers against each other, easy to see why, it takes no effort to make garbage for someone else to verify, obviously this will result in alienation from other workers, more than someone like me feels alienation from fellow students.
The same applies to books, articles and blogs, let's take another example from the field of software since it is what I'm familiar with: one of the main ways i improve my craft is with books, articles, blogs and videos of conferences which document how real, hard problems were solved, each of these points me at a person who labored at writing the article/blog/presentation, the people involved in the teams, the people who are inspiration to those people and so on. LLM's just don't do that, they can't* give a source, they take the problems and the solutions out of their context, which makes reasoning harder, they can't point you at "extra reading".
Also to your point about scrolls, the alternative to scrolls is something that contains the same information, just stored in a different manner, which reminds me, i don't remember when was the last time i listened to music from a CD, they, and scrolls, are, once again, not comparable to LLM's.
I don't agree with the original wording of the person you replied to, but i can do my best to explain still.
Firstly, the obvious meaning for the term "AI" here is LLM's, this makes the following points clear:
Why is this technology inherently anti-worker and hierarchical?
Anarchism, in all its forms (or at least all that i can think of on the spot), rely mainly on community, inter-personal relationships, and the union of means and ends, LLM's form an incentive to not make connections with other people, to not rely on other people's expertise, and sometimes to even doubt your own.
I'm not even giving this justice as these tools are trained to speak like a person, this has psychological implications, I'm sure you've heard the term "AI psychosis" before, this term may be medically dubious, but it does point at a real concern, this technology already isolates people, the vulnerable of us, and undermines expertise and community.
The way these models are trained, requires consuming (again, absurd) amounts of data, that can only be aquired via exploitation, alienation of labor from worker (as in no work gets properly credited, and that the LLM's are used and marketed as a replacement for actual sources of knowledge and expertise), and destruction of knowledge, as when you replace a source of knowledge, the people maintaining it may choose to stop doing so (via perceived obsolescence).
If we actually want to reduce the demand for corporate LLM's, the answer is not FOSS LLM's, as much as i love FOSS software, this technology only really drives us apart, we need to do it the tried and true method: building community, mutual aid, mutual responsibility, we need to perserve sources of knowledge and expertise, we need to keep expertise valuable, and we need trust, this requires community.
Apology for the length of this, in short: The demand for AI is a spook, go do community work.
You can claim the amount of men suffering from violence is only larger if you exclude specific kinds of violence, and the reason women point out the "violence against women" problem is more due to the fact that there is a discernable kind of violence, specifically perpetrated against women (usually by men, and usually by people close to them) because they are women, and is mostly ignored as a specific societal issue.
The violence men suffer from is usually generic, in the "everyone suffers from it, but men do more" kind of way, which is why fascist politicians allow themselves to act like it is a reason police should get more funding, weaponry and deregulation, knowing that their target audience, vulnerable/afraid/hateful men will show their support.
There are issues unique to women and they should be allowed the space to formulate them without having to have a caveat pertaining to things outside their experience, we should too, but considering a cause for many of our problems is other men, that makes our job significantly harder than simply participating in a woman's discussion about their problems.
Well put, they did ask specific questions about their social lives, which probably is a bit better than to ask about a person's perceived feelings of loneliness.
But that too has limitations, and i wonder if there can even be a better method.
I'll attempt to give a more hand wavey approach, but one that is hopefully easier to understand.
First, implement:
Now this can be used in a loop, where you supply a slice starting at the last line (or the beginning of the slice, on the first iteration), where len is the length of the original string minus the amount of characters consumed (index of the beginning of the slice, relative to the start of the original string).
Note this requires calculating the string length beforehand, if this is a c-string (as in null terminated).
This should be relatively simpler to understand and implement than what the standard library supplies, sadly the C standard library is not easy to use or very reliable, so you'll mostly have to make do yourself.
I hope this helped, I'm currently away from a computer so i can't give a code example, good luck.
Going to do the math an a number that relates to 100g, as in is pretty much stated in percentage?
You're so smart and mature for using such big words, definitely not vile and hateful.
In these kinds of times it can seem pointless, but please make sure you eat and rest well, grieving is taxing on the mind and body, take care.
In the end all we can hope for is having given them a happy and comfortable life, I'm sure you did.
Seems like a good policy in general, open to changes, i hope this will make reviewers' job easier, considering how hard reviewing PR's for a university project with partners who insist on using LLMs for almost everything, i can barely imagine how frustrating this all must be.