The final act and ending of Rublev is in my opinion the greatest ending in all of film. So brilliant, you can be thinking the rest of the film is slow and tough to decipher, but it pays off as the ending hits so well.
It’s a funny anology because what’s missing for the rainbows with pots of gold is magic and fairytales…so what’s missing for consciousness is also magic and fairytales? I’ve yet to see any compelling argument for believing enough computer wouldn’t allow us to code consciousness.
Yes that's just it though, it's a logic argument. "Tell me why we aren't just stochastic parrots!" is more logically sound than "God made us", but that doesn't defacto make it "The correct model of reality".
I am suspect that the world is modeled linearly. That physical reality is non-linear is also more logically sound, so why is there such a clear straight line from compute to consciousness?
No one wants it? If there is no demand, then no one is going to become a supplier. You don’t even want the apps you’re dreaming of building, you wouldn’t use them. If you would use them, you would already be using apps that are available. It’s why developers claim huge benefits but the output is the same, there isn’t much demand for your average software company to push more output, the bottleneck is customer demand. If anything customer demand is falling because of AI. There is no platform that is blowing up for people to shovel shit to. Everything is saturated, there is no room for shovelware.
The argument isn’t only applied to creating new todo apps. If the speed up was true, we’d be existing open source tools with more and more features, more polished than ever etc.
Instead I’m not waiting for something like Linux on smartphones to come so soon.
How do tools like this avoid what I see in many of these types of narrative chat bots: the user becomes the only one steering the narrative, and the AI ends up just an obedient responder? Whenever I try these things it ends up very predictable, shallow, and repetitive, especially as time goes on. And if I have to prompt the AI to be creative or act differently... is that really acting different?
You must at least do some pre- and post-processing to have the LLM consume and generate text that isn't part of the main user interface. But given that you can put in guidance that can increase the small-scale surprise of the interaction. For instance I'll have the LLM write out some of the objective environment at the moment before it considers a decision, so that it doesn't essentially retcon the setup for a plot direction it intends to take.
For the larger arc you'll need something like memory to pull the whole thing together. That include repetition over time. You can ask the LLM not to repeat itself, and it can do that, but only if it understands what it's done. And to some degree it needs to understand what it's _doing_: the LLM like the player is still generating short turns, and so if it wants to create surprise that is revealed over multiple turns then it needs space to plan ahead.
I've experimented with this and one approach is to avoid the simple chat interface. Let the game be the "user" and have it relay the player's text. Something like
<<< We're in this situation, I'm the game master, and the player said "xyz". I need your help to handle this request according to the rules of the game. >>>
Then the LLM is directing the obedience towards the game master and the rules, rather than the player.
Back before ChatGPT was publicly available, there was AI Dungeon. It was such a yes-man though. You could be in a scene with a king and a princess, then write "I eat the demon", and it would just invent a demon in the scene, and then describe how you unhinge your jaw and gobble it down.
I've had similar experiences with vanilla ChatGPT as a DM but I bet with clever prompt engineering and context window management you could solve or at least dramatically improve the experience. For example, you could have the model execute a planning step before your session in which it generates a plot outline, character list, story tree, etc. which could then be used for reference during the game session.
One problem that would probably still linger is model agreeableness, i.e. despite preparation, models have a tendency to say yes to whatever you ask for, and everybody knows a good DM needs to know when to say no.
Anecdote on my side, but Grok 4 was the first model that didn't feel like that to me. Maybe my conversations were just not long enough for it to fallback to sycophantic behavior.
The core problem here to solve is sense of time. You can't build good long term experiences without building agentic systems that understand time and chat bots that are simple wrappers around LLMs are terrible at this because LLMs don't have a good sense of time.
But a plethora of freely available, porn in every flavour already exists. In full HD video, even in full 8k VR. Whatever addiction epidemic that AI brings to porn, already exists, and doesn’t seem provably that damaging. Further, porn has a kind of cap for males, you can really only engage with it so often..with diminishing returns. It is nothing like gambling, drugs or alcohol.
Playing around with stable diffusion, I’m wondering if the act of prompting/“creating” pornography is somehow more engaging/addicting than simply consuming pornography. Watching gambling channels isn’t the problem. Actively making gambling choices leads to the problems. I suppose we will find out.
Also, the sort of inconsistent porn/IP controls these image creation AIs implement add a peep show element (will it or won’t it generate this image, or something close…let’s find out) which is oddly more engaging. It adds a puzzle element to the mix…”boudoir oil” prompts combined with historical eras lead to a range of sensual images most wouldn’t know even existed as part of the history of Western Art. Their training sets pretty obviously include sensual images of many eras, and clever folks with a knowledge of cultural history can ferret that content out with the right stream of legitimate prompts. So that gaming/discovery element unintentionally makes generating these “almost-porn” AI images under simple screening more engaging/addicting than a simple Internet search. Boy, I would have been a popular 14 year old boy in AI class in junior high…
Someone else mentioned needing additional stats to just the score line. There are most definitely boring draws. There are also boring blow outs. If the draw comes with lots of saves, which naturally means lots of shots on target, lots of corners, equal time of possession, then that would be a much more exciting match. A game with a low shot count and few corners would indicate a potentially boring game
Most of the time unless your club is playing, you'd root for a draw in games between top teams for the rivals to drop points. So rooting for a draw is more exciting for a Liverpool fan watching an Arsenal City game for instance.
