- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Am I the only person that doesn't care about AI in games, as long as it is good?
Posted on 12/22/25 at 12:59 pm to Roaad
Posted on 12/22/25 at 12:59 pm to Roaad
quote:
The article is about translation and understanding the meaning of what is said
That is not what the article said. It's simply gauging whether the LLM is capable of translating from one language to another without making mistakes. Just like an LLM can "speak" to you without having the faintest idea what either of you are actually saying on a conceptual level, an LLM can translate languages without understanding the language if it has a sufficiently large model to work from.
Frankly, I probably could have saved some time by simply copying and pasting the last two paragraphs from that article:
quote:
Although this is a novel approach to quantifying how close humanity is to approaching singularity, this definition of singularity runs into similar problems of identifying AGI more broadly. And while perfecting human speech is certainly a frontier in AI research, the impressive skill doesn’t necessarily make a machine intelligent (not to mention how many researchers don’t even agree on what “intelligence” is).
Whether these hyper-accurate translators are harbingers of our technological doom or not, that doesn’t lessen Translated’s AI accomplishment. An AI capable of translating speech as well as a human could very well change society, even if the true “technological singularity” remains ever elusive.
1
Posted on 12/22/25 at 1:02 pm to Joshjrn
In traffic
This isn't the only metric, just the most alarmingly short
This isn't the only metric, just the most alarmingly short
Posted on 12/22/25 at 1:06 pm to Roaad
quote:
In traffic
Take your time, mate. You know I'm not going anywhere
quote:
This isn't the only metric, just the most alarmingly short
I hear ya; I'm saying I disagree on it being a metric regarding analysis of a singularity, full stop. Publicly available "AI" is an extremely fancy auto-correct program. It doesn't, and can't, "know" a damned thing. And if it can't know anything, it can't build anything new, whether that's a video game asset or an improved iteration of itself.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 1:18 pm to Joshjrn
Just using Google AI (biased source, lol) most all researchers and scientists agree it will occur in 10 to 30 years, with industry figures (biased sales types like Musk and Altman) suggesting between 2026(!!!) and 2030.
Most agree between 2035 and 2060.
A small minority think it will never happen, or will take longer than 30 years (1 in 5)
Most agree between 2035 and 2060.
A small minority think it will never happen, or will take longer than 30 years (1 in 5)
Posted on 12/22/25 at 1:32 pm to Roaad
quote:
Just using Google AI (biased source, lol) most all researchers and scientists agree it will occur in 10 to 30 years, with industry figures (biased sales types like Musk and Altman) suggesting between 2026(!!!) and 2030.
I wonder what kind of odds Musk or Altman would give me on that 2030 date? I'd put every dollar I have against
quote:
Most agree between 2035 and 2060.
A small minority think it will never happen, or will take longer than 30 years (1 in 5)
Like I said, I'm not saying it will never happen; what I'm saying is that we will have to fundamentally alter how we build AI for it to happen. Our current approach to AI is an evolutionary dead end. Now, that doesn't mean it can't be super impressive, but it can't overcome the hurdle that it can't, on a fundamental level, know anything. We will need to create an entirely new AI paradigm to overcome that hurdle.
Also, I feel like I'm back in fricking Philosophy 1001 again
Posted on 12/22/25 at 1:45 pm to Roaad
Low IQ dullards won't notice.
People with an appreciation for effort, detail, and hard work will.
People with an appreciation for effort, detail, and hard work will.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 1:50 pm to Joshjrn
quote:this is happening across the spectrum in every major nation.
I'm saying is that we will have to fundamentally alter how we build AI for it to happen.
My Core Ultra 9 285k has cores dedicated to AI. Systems are being built for AI by default now. GPUs are being designed for them by default.
That doesn't say that much, but tells you this is where it is heading.
Iirc, NASA AI was capable of creating novel designs that humans couldnt conceive.
AI tested in the top 1% of humans for original creative thinking
Posted on 12/22/25 at 2:11 pm to WilliamTaylor21
K
Posted on 12/22/25 at 2:12 pm to Roaad
The best use of AI is when you have no idea that AI was used. The problem is that some time it's very evident such as when you look at a piece of artwork and the character in the picture has 7 fingers.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 2:52 pm to BulldogXero
quote:
The problem is that some time it's very evident such as when you look at a piece of artwork and the character in the picture has 7 fingers.
That's because that "Artificial Intelligence" has no idea what a finger is. Or a hand. Or a human. It simply churns through its database of images, steals a little bit from here and there, then churns something out. It has no idea what you asked it to do, and it has no idea what it provided to you. In most image generation applications, that's fine. But as soon as there's something that varies a fair bit but always has the exact same number of something, our currently non-intelligent Artificial Intelligence will never, ever be able to understand why it's wrong.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 2:59 pm to Roaad
quote:
Iirc, NASA AI was capable of creating novel designs that humans couldnt conceive.
AI tested in the top 1% of humans for original creative thinking
I would like to see a citation to the former, and as for the latter, I'm not sure that I believe AI was able to come up with a truly novel use for a basketball, but if you can find the actual study, I would be happy to read it
Posted on 12/22/25 at 4:16 pm to Roaad
quote:
I think this is it.
Human design is aesthetic-biased, they utilized AI to create designs of pure function.
Very cool application of the technology, but still not displaying knowledge or creativity. The AI has no idea what it's creating, what it's for, or what it does. It spits out a form based on prompts with no understanding of why.
quote:
To create these parts, a computer-assisted design (CAD) specialist starts with the mission’s requirements and draws in the surfaces where the part connects to the instrument or spacecraft – as well any bolts and fittings for electronics and other hardware. The designer might also need to block out a path so that the algorithm doesn’t block a laser beam or optical sensor. Finally, more complex builds might require spaces for technicians’ hands to maneuver for assembly and alignment. Once all off-limits areas are defined, the AI connects the dots, McClelland said, producing complex structure designs in as little as an hour or two. “The algorithms do need a human eye,” he said. “Human intuition knows what looks right, but left to itself, the algorithm can sometimes make structures too thin.”
But again, very cool and very useful.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:34 am to sicboy
quote:
I'm just saying I've seen the general chatter about AI on this site. If this was on any game other than Claire Obscur, this thread wouldn't have happened.
Video gamers have been begging for better AI in games forever.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 7:24 am to Joshjrn
quote:Definitely displaying creativity
Very cool application of the technology, but still not displaying knowledge or creativity.
The point is it creates something new, not stealing from others. It is capable of doing that. Not on the scale of generating assets or art for games yet. It shows proof of concept
Posted on 12/23/25 at 7:29 am to Roaad
quote:
Definitely displaying creativity The point is it creates something new, not stealing from others. It is capable of doing that. Not on the scale of generating assets or art for games yet. It shows proof of concept
I disagree. Slime molds don’t display creativity when seeking bits of food in their Petri dish, but if you intentionally place the food to represent cities on a map, they will build you a very viable train system serving those cities. And just like AI, the slime mold has no idea what a train is.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 7:49 am to Joshjrn
So you are saying it shows creativity, just not up to your standard. That's fine.
NASA seems to think it was creative. I agree.
NASA seems to think it was creative. I agree.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 7:55 am to Roaad
quote:
So you are saying it shows creativity, just not up to your standard. That's fine. NASA seems to think it was creative. I agree.
No, I’m saying that, in the English language, “being creative” has connotations beyond “created something”.
But ultimately, this is semantics.
The day AI has actual knowledge of literally anything, we can start marching towards the singularity. Until then, it’s my opinion that anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you something.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:17 pm to Joshjrn
quote:fundamentally flawed definition. Finding a new way of doing a thing, or a new design for a thing is considered creative.
No, I’m saying that, in the English language, “being creative” has connotations beyond “created something”.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:30 pm to Roaad
quote:
fundamentally flawed definition. Finding a new way of doing a thing, or a new design for a thing is considered creative.
Agree to disagree that slime mold is creative
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News