> I did so in the usual manner - have her sit on the seat while I grab the handlebars and run along side her, then release the bike and watch her panic, freeze, topple over, and kick the bike in frustration.
This part confuses me a lot. Where I'm from you teach kids to ride by attaching a broom (or similar) stick to the back of the bike. That way you can gently hold them when they mess up the balance, but they still get the appropriate feedback that they need to balance on their own. As a plus you feel when they are getting better at it, and the "release" is softer. It is not an all or nothing process, you just hold the stick less and less, and suddenly the kid is cycling on their own.
I couldn't imagine doing the same with holding the handlebar. It would be hard to do. Would mess their feedback loop up. And what is worse it would telegraph to them when you are releasing them thus making it more likely that they panic.
Does anyone really do the "grabbing the handlebars" method to teach kids to ride a bike? Is it a regional difference?
You can also use a scarf that goes under their arms and run along with them ready to catch them with the scarf when they are going to fall. This way you apply 0 force and they get all the feedback. It did help that they stared on a balance bike with no pedals before making the transition to the bike with pedals.
Wait, wait. In the context of semiconductor manufacturing packaging does not mean what you think it means. It is not putting the product in a paper box.
It is about cutting the wafer into individual chips, wire bonding the silicone to pins, and covering the whole thing with epoxy.
You are correct. I was just illustrating what kind of processes belong to the umbrella term "packaging" in the context of semiconductor manufacturing. Was not talking about what particular process are missing from the Arizona facility.
But you are right on that it is CoWoS which is the missing ingredient.
> this isn't a thing that anyone would truly want.
Citation needed.
> A purely AI generated or controlled world would have no constraints
That's a shitty AI then. Make a better one. I can play 2000 Vampire: The Masquerade games with 2000 different groups. They will each be different, but they will also be each distinctly Vampire: The Masquerade ttrpg games. If the AI you are thinking about can't do the same, then think of a better AI.
> at least with current technology.
Well. Who is the group who will make the "next technology"? Should we work on that, or just lay down on the ground and wait for it to fall from the sky? Testing what are the limits of the current technology (as done in the paper we are talking about here) is the way to get there. Or at least to systematically answer the question of where and what are we lacking.
Lol, a citation of what? This is my opinion statement and the rest of my post follows it.
> That's a shitty AI then. Make a better one. I can play 2000 Vampire: The Masquerade games with 2000 different groups. They will each be different, but they will also be each distinctly Vampire: The Masquerade ttrpg games. If the AI you are thinking about can't do the same, then think of a better AI.
Sure, I'll get right on that.
> Well. Who is the group who will make the "next technology"? Should we work on that, or just lay down on the ground and wait for it to fall from the sky? Testing what are the limits of the current technology (as done in the paper we are talking about here) is the way to get there. Or at least to systematically answer the question of where and what are we lacking.
I'm really unsure of what or who you are addressing here but it certainly isn't anything I've written in my post.
Citation that nobody wants what you described? The sentence which I was quoting.
> This is my opinion statement
Your opinon can be that "I don't want this." "nobody wants this" is refers to things outside of your head. Do you see the difference between the two?
> it certainly isn't anything I've written in my post.
Your post is suffused with defeatism. The 3 "no"s it contains are: "nobody wants this", "with current technology this cannot be fun" and an implicit "we can't make the next technology". I believe each of those are wrong, and I'm calling you out on the attitude.
Ok, then what advances are being made in AI technology in this gaming that lends you such confidence? Care to make any citations yourself here? I don't really care what you think of my attitude, nor does it make for productive discussion or good posting.
Happily. I know you are wrong on the "nobody wants this" statement because I want it. With a sweeping generic statement like "nobody wants this" a single example is enough to disprove it. There you have it.
> what advances are being made in AI technology in this gaming that lends you such confidence?
There is a ton of experimenting going on. AI Dungeon and Deep Realms are the two obvious ones. I don't think anyone has found the golden solution yet, but that is also not evidence that no such thing exists.
> Like in my experience the best part of d&d is the dungeon master who knows their friends making a story and details specifically for fun and the fun of the group.
Sure.
There are two reason why I can think of someone making a Dungeon Master LLm.
One is that when there is no cake we eat bread.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a DM, and I love playing d&d with my friends. I totally agree with the sentiment you are sharing. But people who are willing, and able to DM for others are not evenly distributed. There is a lot more people who would like to play TTRPGs than people who is willing to step into the DM role.
So in that sense think of this as a substitutions for those games which would not happen otherwise, because they don't have a DM. Or the only person who would DM them is an ass. Or their DM has burnt out.
Is some game better than no game? Sometimes. Depends on how good that game is. And we won't know how good the substitute can be without trying. Heck maybe more people will play, and they will realise how easy is to DM actually.
The other reason is the sheer challenge of it. Dnd has a lot of rules. There are the obvious ones you can read in the book. But there are also un-written rules. Like object-permanence. If a goblin steals a diamond ring from us, and we slay them within minutes they damn well have the diamond ring on their bodies somewhere. If three displacer beasts ambush us and we slay 2 there damn well be 1 more accounted for in some sense.
There are also "story-writing" rules. If we went through hell and high-water to obtain an arrow of dragon slaying after the blacksmith told us about the legend of it, he better not just pull one out of his ass the next time we see him. If the whole lore of goddess X is that they are kind and caring then they should better be at least not cruel when we meet them. These are all hard for an LLM. They are also easy for a human to evaluate. Because we just feel when they are not right. Therefore it is a good challenge to evaluate how good we are at this "making a bucket of sand smart" task.
> He opened his jacket and he was all bruised. So that's how he did it—it hurt—but you had to care enough not to care.
I don't want performers to risk their safety, health and life for my entertainment. Obviously I cannot stop it, but I can stop watching those who engage in things like this. (And I don't just mean the stunt performer, but the director, the producers, the studio and the franchise.)
I have unsubscribed from youtube channels when I felt that they were pushing themselves in dangerous directions. It is not like that alone will stop them, but if I would keep watching I would be complicit in the harm which might befall them.
There is the principle attributed to Houdini by Penn Jillette that a performance/trick should not be more dangerous than sitting in one's living room. Especially when it appears dangerous. I don't know about the exact line though. Strictly interpreting the "not be more dangerous than sitting in one's living room" definition would disqualify any performance where the performer had to drive (or be chauffeured) to the location of their performance. And that would be a bit ridiculous.
Houdini died from a rather trivial stunt he performed many times before. A hit to the abdomen before he could flex his muscles most likely ruptured his appendix. Keaton died of lung cancer well past the end of his fame.
You can manage the danger of stunts, you can reduce it and prepare for anything that could go wrong. You can never completely avoid it and sometimes a single error is all it takes.
There's a youtube channel out there that used to be a sort of nature channel, but seems to have devolved into 'Get stung/bit by painful animal X'. I haven't watched their stuff in ages, but I'm very aware that the original channel host isn't the one getting stung anymore. I have to wonder what it was like from their perspective, watching the view counts go up and up with each successive "Hurt yourself on camera" video, and wondering what to do next.
>There's a youtube channel out there that used to be a sort of nature channel, but seems to have devolved into 'Get stung/bit by painful animal X'. I haven't watched their stuff in ages, but I'm very aware that the original channel host isn't the one getting stung anymore.
I'm a rock climber. There are many people out there who take wild and unnecessary risks on a regular basis for no accolades whatsoever, out in the middle of nowhere where no one can see them, and they don't tell anybody about it aftwerwards. However, if they want to do it for my entertainment that's fine too.
> I don't want performers to risk their safety, health and life for my entertainment.
I mean, they pretty much all do to some degree. It's not healthy on your body to do eight Broadway shows a week. Or to be constantly switching between all-day and all-night shoots on a TV show. And performing a role of high emotional trauma every day for weeks or months takes its own kind of toll too.
Obviously nobody should be at risk of life or of permanent injury, that goes without saying.
But getting bruises while doing stunts, that's just what being a stuntperson is. Nobody is forced into it. And this is why there are stuntpeople in the first place -- it's not just for skills. Sometimes the regular actor could do it fine, but there's no time in the schedule for their body to recover afterwards.
Your position is similar to why I stopped watched NFL games. I get that players choose to play (for money), but at the end of the day, I am unwilling to contribute to brain damage.
“One hundred seventy-three performers (80%) indicated at least one head impact/head whip during their stunt career. Of these, 86% exhibited concussion-like symptoms and 38% received one or more concussion diagnoses. Sixty-five percent continued working with concussion-like symptoms.”
Let's not scale mountains, explore the oceans, cross the poles, or go to space. Why be heroic when we can all hold hands and be safe.
"""They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth. One still loveth one's neighbour and rubbeth against him; for one needeth warmth."""
It is more that they even thought this is an okay thing to do makes them moraly suspect in my eyes. Doesn’t matter if they went through with it or not. Doesn’t matter why they haven’t gone through with it either.
They should have told the person offering to steal a statue that he shouldn’t. And when he shows up with a statue they should have told him that he should bring it back or they are calling the police. And when he brought the second statue they should have called the police instead of paying for it. And then every single day the statue was on his mantle piece he should have returned it safely. Same as when things got too hot for them. Instead they decided to destroy them.
These are all facts which put them in rather bad light. By that point they were already miles deep into bad decisions. And, none of them even asked “what if we just leave this suitcase with a sign which says ‘to the police’?” But somehow i should care weather they didn’t go through with destroying the statues out of cowardice or consciousness? Even if it is consciousness it is too little too late for me.
> It is more that they even thought this is an okay thing to do makes them moraly suspect in my eyes.
Maybe you don't seriously consider doing really bad things, and even take steps playing with the idea of doing them. I definitely have, especially when I was younger.
> They should have told the person offering to steal a statue that he shouldn’t. And when he shows up with a statue they should have told him that he should bring it back or they are calling the police. And when he brought the second statue they should have called the police instead of paying for it. And then every single day the statue was on his mantle piece he should have returned it safely.
Sure, stealing things is bad.
> And, none of them even asked “what if we just leave this suitcase with a sign which says ‘to the police’?”
Actually, they handed them to the police through a newspaper. That's what they actually did! So clearly they asked it at some point ;)
> Maybe you don't seriously consider doing really bad things, and even take steps playing with the idea of doing them. I definitely have, especially when I was younger.
There was a lot more there just "considering". If they just had a night chatting about the state of museum security that would have been "consider doing really bad things" and "take steps playing with the idea of doing them".
> If I have an perfect planning/prediction system, I can throw the grungiest, worst perception data into it and it will still plan successfully despite tons of uncertainty.
Not really. Even the perfect planning system will appear eratic in the presence of perception noise. It must be because it can’t create information out of nowhere.
I have seen robots eratically stop because they thought that the traffic in the oncomming lane is enroaching on theirs. You can’t make the planning system ignore that because then sometimes it will collide with people playing chicken with you.
Likewise I have seen robots eratically stop because they thought that a lamp post was slowly reversing out in front of them. All due to perception noise (in this case both location noise, and misclassification.)
And do note that these are just the false positives. If you have a bad perception system you can also suffer from false negatives. Just experiment biases hide those.
So your “perfect planning/prediction” will appear overly cautious while at the same time will be sometimes reckless. Because it doesn’t have the information to not to. You can’t magic plan your way out of that. (Unless you pipe the raw sensor data into the planner, in which case you created a second perception system you are just not calling it perception.)
>> (Unless you pipe the raw sensor data into the planner, in which case you created a second perception system you are just not calling it perception.)
Like with model-free RL learning a model from pixels?
> that's the equivalent of me unilaterally calling New York "Nouvelle Amsterdam" then
This is very common. The name used by the locals is called endonym and the one used by foreigners is the exonym.
For example Zhōnghuá is the endonym vs China the exonym. Or Magyarország vs Hungary. Or Deutschland vs Germany. Or so I not just list English exonyms Lake Balaton vs Plattensee.
Curious thing to say. For me it is obvious that the content is the book’s essence.
reply