Farid

They meant to say “Control or* Backspace is Space”, right? Right?!

Removed by mod

While the post is clearly a shitpost, and the arguments in their provided form are not entirely valid, they could be altered to be valid.

Purpose-built devices will always have advantages over generic “do everything” devices. A modern smartphone can do everything, but you still have MP3/FLAC players, DSLR cameras, calculators, etc. Similarly, a PC can do everything, but there are still TV sticks, gaming consoles, tablets, etc.

PC can’t be as low-friction as a console for gaming. To start playing all you need to do is pick up the controller, press the Home button, TV comes on and you’re back where you left off. All the games in the store are 100% compatible with 0 settings manipulations.

Now, you could build a PC for the sole purpose of playing games on it, and come fairly close to the experience. But you’re gonna spend more and put a lot of effort into it.
Some issues you might encounter:

• picking and installing the right OS
• hardware/software compatibility
• controller support
• seamless sleep/wake
• lack of HDMI CEC protocol to control the TV

Whereas a console is a plug-and-play tailored experience that guarantees all of the above to not be an issue.

TL;DR: You can’t just plug your PC to a TV and expect the same result as playing on a console. It will take much more work to get there.

PipeWire is a server and user space API to deal with multimedia pipelines. This includes:

• Making available sources of video (such as from a capture devices or application provided streams) and multiplexing this with clients.
• Accessing sources of video for consumption.
• Generating graphs for audio and video processing.

Nodes in the graph can be implemented as separate processes, communicating with sockets and exchanging multimedia content using fd passing.

There is no spoon.

Wtf are jere-…

Yeah, ok, thanks.

I’m sorry, wtf is “shirts vs skins”?

I’m not redefining anything, I’m just pointing out that intelligence is not as narrow as most people assume, it’s a broad term that encompasses various gradations. It doesn’t need to be complex or human-like to qualify as intelligence.

A single if statement arguably isn’t intelligence, sure, but how many if statements is? Because at some point you can write a complex enough sequence of if statements that will exhibit intelligence. As I was saying in my other comments, where do we draw this line in the sand? If we use the definition from the link, which is:

The highest faculty of the mind, capacity for comprehending general truths.

Then 99% of animal species would not qualify as intelligent.

You may rightfully argue that term AI is too broad and that we could narrow it down to mean specifically “human-like” AI, but the truth is, that at this point, in computer science AI already refers to a wide range of systems, from basic decision-making algorithms to complex models like GPTs or neural networks.

My whole point is less about redefining intelligence and more about recognizing its spectrum, both in nature and in machines. But I don’t expect for everybody to agree, even the expert in the fields don’t.

Opponent players in games have been labeled AI for decades, so yeah, software engineers have been producing AI for a while. If a computer can play a game of chess against you, it has intelligence, a very narrowly scoped intelligence, which is artificial, but intelligence nonetheless.

I would put it differently. Sometimes words have two meanings, for example a layman’s understanding of it and a specialist’s understanding of the same word, which might mean something adjacent, but still different. For instance, the word “theory” in everyday language often means a guess or speculation, while in science, a “theory” is a well-substantiated explanation based on evidence.

Similarly, when a cognitive scientist talks about “intelligence”, they might be referring to something quite different from what a layperson understands by the term.

In a way, yes, if you frame it right. To simplify, you’re basically asking “is a calculator intelligent?”, right? While it’s an inanimate object, you could say that, in a way, it acquires knowledge from the buttons user presses and it applies knowledge to provide an output.

“But that’s not making decisions, it’s just circuits!”, you might say. To which I might reply “Who’s to say that you’re making decisions? For all we know, human brains might also just be very complicated circuits with no agency at all, just like the calculator!”.

IIRC, in his book The Singularity Is Near, Ray Kurzweil even assigns certain amount of intelligence to inanimate objects, such as rocks. A very low amount of course, and it might be a stretch, but still.

So yeah, it’s really hard to draw a line for intelligence, which is why there’s no firm definition and no consensus.

Of course there are various versions of NPCs, some stand and do nothing, others are more complex, they often “adapt” to certain conditions. For example, if an NPC is following the player it might “decide” to switch to running if the distance to the player reaches a certain threshold, decide how to navigate around other dynamic/moving NPCs, etc. In this example, the NPC “acquires” knowledge by polling the distance to the player and applies that “knowledge” by using its internal model to make a decision to walk or run.

The term “acquiring knowledge” is pretty much as subjective as “intelligence”. In the case of an ant, for example, it can’t really learn anything, at best it has a tiny short-term memory in which it keeps certain most recent decisions, but it surely gets things done, like building colonies.

For both cases, it’s just a line in the sand.

To say it’s not intelligence is incorrect. It’s still (an inferior kind of) intelligence, humans just put certain expectations into the word. An ant has intelligence. An NPC in a game has intelligence. They are just very basic kinds of intelligence, very simple decision making patterns.

I selected all and it’s still not enough of a reason!

Bow to Alec! Let Alec consume you!

How dare you ignore Alec’s video? 😤

Tekken, Lili vs. Panda.

Is that so? Then, I stand corrected and retract my complaint, it somewhat makes sense now. And in my defense, it’s been more than a decade since I played and I think I finished it in one sitting, so it’s a blur.

What, you don’t find it fun to understand humor more in-depth by overanalyzing to death the aspects of a joke?! What a weirdo…

Let me try to, anyway.
IIRC, you start the game in the aquarium as an octopus, and then escape. That’s when you’re explicitly shown to be an octopus. Every NPC, however, sees the octopus in some amount of disguise. So even if we constantly roll a nat 1 on perception check like all the NPC, we didn’t have to roll it on the first encounter, therefore we know it’s an octopus.

That’s what I meant, you’re making the joke from the perspective of a person that doesn’t realize there’s an octopus in the game, even though there is one.

And the reason I said it’s confusing is because the game title is only perceived by the player of the game, and the player is explicitly told/shown that you’re playing as an octopus. So the perspective used in the joke is impossible, but I understand that I’m being pedantic, feel free to ignore my ramblings caused by the uncontrollable urge to point out the inconsistency.