Other Random question of the day

Intellectual development/because/refinement and stress testing/comfort/entertainment from going mad of boredom/"escapism."
The summarization that ignores the human component is all the word wall below.

Ignoring an endless list of mental pursuits and case by case aspects:
On average it is akin to stress testing and recalibration. Every form of technology no matter the sophistication or advancement will always need this. "goofing around" or other things often viewed as enemy activity by some, like training on video games themselves, are the best means of stress testing all forms of media altering, mimicry, and creation software that exists. AI is also entirely capable of being DIYed and democratized, which means they may lack all the.... Interesting, bits of data, datasets, and resources and thus their development, refinement, and testing stages need to use whatever is on hand. Even if in an idealist utopia, people would still be found doing this. The same as how people would still drink, smoke, or whatever else. Just imagine the technological equivalent.

In this case, we have multiple things we have to test at once:
The creation of an algorithm usually for sorting.
The creation of a software to recognize vocal aspects like inflection, tone, pitch, shifts, and if sophisticated (but not advanced) enough then to shift them.
The creation of yet another system networked or a series of unrobust algorithms to act like a camera to replay, analyze, and other shenanigans audio.
This may or may not involve using audio software itself to invent up new voices, or correct mistakes and failures to fill the gaps.
It is to then also be synched up to a script usually digitally written, to be recited by this "intelligence."
And that is the normal process if one doesn't care about going all the way with it, or merging it with existing models, algorithms, etc. And like most other systems, hybrid designs are better but so anti-robust that new data smashes them to smithereens without remorse or mercy and needs to be retrained from scratch. Then, we can test it out doing random crap. Like Obama playing league, or seeing how well a chatbot works if more extensive, or seeing if it can work as well in something else then correcting it if not. And then you pretty much gut most of it and remake a new one in a couple of years to do the same thing again but faster.

Chatbots can do this better though, but often work on speech biases needing to periodically be lowered but not too much than its level or incomprehensible, consist of so many different systems all compounding to make something new that it may as well be a blackbox, or some rare ones use machine reinforcement learning, the equivalent of a "genetic" or "evolutionary" algorithm set, and random stuff unrelated to being used purely for communicative or assistant purposes. (Because others including DIYers aren't just making it up for corporate reasons.) In other cases, the system is already done.
A super model like a GPT being merged with various voice systems and then used for varying degrees of voice emulation for singing songs, playing games, and reading sci-fi papers is to display publicly the work. At times it is akin to being used like a technological resume for a job.

The rest of the time it is literally because someone got bored, took an existing thing as is, and used it for entertainment and decided to share the end results publicly. But yet, anything that isn't purpose or cripplingly role specialized people for some reason despise, despite generalization tending to be the superior means forwards. And this would indeed, include leisurely activities.
 
Random question of the day:

Since AI is becoming more advanced, why are we using it for things such as making US presidents play video games?
I mean...it's not like it's not used for more practical things.
However, the reason it's used for things like this I believe boils down to creative freedom.
If it's a tool that can be used, it will be used in ways further than just one person can fathom.
 
Random question of the day:

Since AI is becoming more advanced, why are we using it for things such as making US presidents play video games?
Honestly, as stupid as it sounds, it's really funny to watch.
I do think they should curb the part where the AI will write essays FOR you because that's cheating...
 
I swear I was talking to my brother about this when we were walking the dogs last night
 
Not sure if I asked this one before, but...

Random question of the day:

Is it true that video game companies like Nintendo and Sega are risking alienating gamers 15 and up by marketing their games towards elementary school gamers?
 
I don't think so?
It wouldn't even qualify in an alternative perspective where someone might want to scream off that the demographics are somehow snowflakes.

To me it just seems like another demographic branch to account for another generation, which guarantees that you'll get at least one quality thing in the same universes you like if not new invented ones, until you go out from old age.
 
Random question of the day:

If you were forced to live in either the hottest country in the world, the wettest country in the world or the coldest country in the world, which of the three would you choose?
 
The most wet one, naturally. But then I hope you mean the most rainy or humid and not the one most prone to flooding. Although the two could likely be the same.
 
Random question of the day:

If you were forced to live in either the hottest country in the world, the wettest country in the world or the coldest country in the world, which of the three would you choose?

I already live in the hottest place in the US, the Arizona desert, so I’m good.
 
Higher heat tolerance in general with water preference. No matter the case of context this would be better. I like extremely long bouts of raining, growing things, and the dark generally involved with this. So technically if we take it to that extreme, I'd go with the water especially if humidity is involved. If not eh. If it is literally just wettest and it is taken as rain, then I'd be stuck with Colombia. If it involves varied humidity but lots of water Vietnam. We can make the joke that it keeps flooding, the tiny pole that is Florida USA all the way up to Boston. Considering the funny ideas of "home arrangements" I believe in, it isn't as if catastrophic flooding would be a concern to me. Heat purely otherwise, can technically make a real world moister farm off of it.
So just hit certain portions of New Mexico, Nevada desert, the entirety of Arizona, or sucking it up and dealing with Florida which will disintegrate normies. Alot of the time either of the two go hand in hand.

Either way I get my planting water, bathing water, drinking water, and probably a gallon or two spared to use in artificial muscles. I win either way, just slower if I have to extract it from random crap generating heat or environmental heat and vapor.
 
Random question of the day:

What's one video game you know of where the game rewards you for being a jerk?

Darkwatch. A game where as you play as a recently turned vampire hunter who must fight between the draw of his vampire desires or to stay on the path of righteousness. You have two sets of powers for good and bad, and obviously you get better powers if you follow the path of evil. Another good example is the infamous series.
 
In terms of abilities,
The jedi Knight Jedi Academy of star wars, and Kotor.
In JKJA you get three pathways to deal with, and one tends to be automated. On the dark side you can go all the way up to health and force replenishment by sucking out people's life force and force drain, and then with lightning you at maximum can throw human wave charges of enemies into walls at Mach 15,000. Light side you get the ability to heal faster and on the move at higher levels though. You can also force choke someone, move them to a hole, and drop them to their grave. You can use multiple abilities like the choke, aim at the sky, and use force lightning to fling them through the stratosphere, or you can fling your lightsaber at someone while you are holding another in the air, fling them into someone else, enter a saber lock with a force-wielding madman, and then suck out their soul before blasting them away with force lightning. You can also get away with using dark side powers without actually having to be a bad guy or killing off your own. But that is still an option. Kinda like how you can larp as neo by console command and just do 7 different mortal kombat moves on a Sith Lord.

Kotor is kinda similar but has it tied to the story.
If you use any questionable abilities, they are pretty good and so is exploiting battle meditation, but it leans you over more to the dark side and your compatriots also suffer for it. But you can totally in end scenes, as well as gameplay end up being more insane of a badass than Mr. I won't die until I say so. In Kotor I for example the ending and JKJA for being a netherlandian waste disposal product route, infers that you are at least a force-wielding death general. But since these are more individual story driven experiences rather than a RPG game that later on turns into an RTS game, you'd never be able to play with it.

Storyline alone,
I can only think of one but not the name. Stories generally tend to be all about improvements, deconstructions, or whatever else so it usually doesn't just let you play like Stanley vs the Narrator. The closest to a game that lets you just mindlessly blast out a million dudes and not suffer for it and because it is listed under "campaign" would be the men of war games. Where as long as you achieve the mission or at times the goals for various objectives to then win a mission, you can pretty much gut any man, vehicle, building, and child mercilessly and then still be told good job. In the ones with stories, as long as the mission doesn't require every individual soldier to be alive, you can pretty much troll them and expend them all for personal amusement. But you more often than not have individual units out performing platoons of men through careful planning and vehicular manslaughter. I for example had a tank commander that I used to blow out an entire town get their tank busted, man an artillery piece to blast out a convoy, then using a machine gun by crawling to it, finished off the remaining forces.

Unless you wanna say that or Axis and Allies is a game that rewards jerky activities, I think only the ability section would be relevant to the question.
 
Dark Brotherhood questline can only be started in Oblivion by murdering someone
 
You can get free fifty bucks in mother 2 by having Ness pestering a customer.
 
Case by case basis, but the answer is yes. It usually just refers to being casual like it doesn't actually affect you but yet you still have an interest in it.

For some their tolerance/ego hasn't replenished so direct, brash, and blunt they prefer.
Others like fetishizing civility even in situations and contexts and people which it would never work on.
The rest of the population, paid talents, etc usually operate anywhere in the spectrum without being a strawvulcan, the opposite, or a lunatic. It only really requires that normal social manners are heeded, while also retaining the level of aggression to keep questioning or discussing the topic through dissecting the pieces of the argument at a fundamental level. Humans generally respond in normal circumstances to both sides being mixed together, I.E like a special connection being formed or relation, and mixed with something one may or may not want to hear but is reinforced by something reasonable enough. Each case would vary greatly, and thus how one responds to them would also vary on this context.

In reality though as long as reality is still heeded, data is backing it up if it is more something like a debate, and the name calling if any only appears after reaching at least a temporary threshold if not a full on criteria, it doesn't matter the approach taken. It is more so the sports guys which already pick a side or someone they like, and hoping for entertainment rather than thought provocation which has an issue with how one interacts. This can stem from cultural shenanigans, person beliefs, a superiority view, or whatever other useless garbage is involved. I guess a better way of viewing it would be through a certain type of positivity: Sometimes being a dom is more effective, other times being a sub is better. And the rest of the time everyone is actually just a switch. Being casual helps stray from either end of the extremes.

If it is a normal argument like are overalls eating you when you put them on?
The same thing applies. It is just I assume it would involve something more along the lines of two people being stoned and questioning it casually. Either way it is kind of neat.
 
I assume it is an outdated or as far as obsolete defensive mechanism from evolution which is easy to redirect let alone for exploitation depending on how hostile or not the environment is. My reasonings for this is the following:
It is kind of like authority simping, where if you don't act or behave in some arbitrary line, the ape-mind wants to pretty much punish you for it. Even if it would be detrimental to long term survival, the ability to be better off, or whatever have you. And thus people that think similarly are the only ones which progress forth. Yet, that doesn't affect everyone and at times the majority even operating off of it can be redeemed from it through better alternatives. A negativity bias however can be defeated by force, an actual discipline/incentives and motivation/morale, or brute mental strength to disregard. Although those in the spectrum don't really suffer this as bad to at all.
There is this thing:
  • Remember traumatic experiences better than positive ones. This one is most likely due to damages to do with the brain caused by it.
  • Recall insults better than praise. This one is probably because of how our multiple rewards systems in the brain work with memory.
  • React more strongly to negative stimuli.
  • Think about negative things more frequently than positive ones. Or more so the "Let us act on automated processes than our mind."
  • Respond more strongly to negative events than to equally positive ones. Which is more so on our social designs which is a majority of the brain.
These are why people are generally dumb enough to care about first impressions, despite reality entailing that anything after matters more than that. But when dealing with humans or similarly functioning animals, you have to play an arbitrary song and dance to not suffer. The above system is also why you have people that think they had the worst day ever if the entire day may as well be you being blessed by God, then some irked co-worker having a bad day gave you a baby-tier insult. Thus when someone is actually having one, the person in question has to be dumb about it.
We tend to...
  • Pay more attention to negative events than positive ones. Which can also get in the way of everything actually vital to life like relationship types.
  • Learn more from negative outcomes and experiences. Which when working properly, can make you better off, or a traumaed wreck.
  • Make decisions based on negative information more than positive data. Which is more so a parasite or mental invasion than useful.
For example, in most I would argue regular people, an incentive reworded to scream off about how you'll lose something and doing this will prevent that is more effective than you gaining something. Though if it takes long enough, your mind will dwell off on what you might lose to have to achieve the goal even if there isn't actually anything but time. Thus like depression, it will destroy your morale and motivations to actually do anything. Which itself flys in the face of how negative nancies as it were, usually act the big dumb-dumb and think the world is cruel, evil, and bad, and that it is magically somehow human nature to be the ultra greed greed. >_> In others, the brain might be wired differently, and thus more positive incentives may take greater precedent. If you gave them fearmongering they'd lose motivation to achieve a goal, objective, or entire mission than to drive them into it. It is the same mental system where if your population is less intellectual, even if highly intelligent you may need officers that scream off and do other worthless crap at them to do their jobs, but if you have someone stronger than that, the officer doing this will more often than not lead to fragging for their mindless transgressions. Thus actual leaders that overcome their mental faults usually tend to operate on a case by case basis rather than one-size-fits-all. For people like workaholics, the system is usually a negative because of how we also self project. I.E rather than focusing on reality lke if someone was traumaed, wrong place and time and just assumed they belong or worked there, isn't being the exact same, isn't in some dumb in-group, you are likely to write them off as lazy (even though actual laziness is insanely difficult to come across, but everyone I guess is trained to be stupid.) lousy and incompetent, rather than they might be depressed, they don't actually belong there, overworked and stressed, their body just cannot handle it or for as long, weight differences, chemical - electrical - physical malformities or imbalances, actual brain damage, different wiring, etc. The same as how idiots though PTSD was cowardice, lazy, and other enemy activity until like the 1980s. This is also affected by culture, parental raising, and personal beliefs, which can all compound to make an individual act and sound like they are less intelligent.

People also focus on negatives as being more truthful, and act more suspicious, afraid, and combative towards positivity. Which itself is often used and exploited as a means to control people through mediums like a cult. Though more legitimate and friendlier groups like a military unit also exploits it. Though, this often leads more to dehumanization than anything actually worth attention. Ideologically speaking however, it kind of works differently. A con thinks ambiguous lines of thought, differences, and the regular stuff is more threatening or problematic, and things like I dunno illegal handholding? might be tied to the brain's survival instincts of how at times a disease can spread through close contact or certain activities and thus generates a subconscious disgust response, even though this system too can be trained in and out. Something more left-like generally doesn't fall for this. Below I found something on the matter and have proceeded to copy and paste it:

"Examples of Negative Bias​

The negative bias can have a variety of real-world effects on how people think and act. Do any of these situations and events seem familiar?


  • You received a performance review at work that was quite positive overall and noted your strong performance and achievements. A few constructive comments pointed out areas where you could improve, and you find yourself fixating on those remarks. Rather than feeling good about the positive aspects of your review, you feel upset and angry about the few critical comments.
  • You had an argument with your significant other, and afterward, you find yourself focusing on all of your partner’s flaws. Instead of acknowledging their good points, you ruminate over all of their imperfections. Even the most trivial of faults are amplified, while positive characteristics are overlooked.
  • You humiliated yourself in front of your friends years ago and can still vividly recall the event. You find yourself cringing with embarrassment over it, even though your friends have probably forgotten about it entirely.
The negativity bias can take a toll on your mental health, causing you to:
  • Dwell on dark thoughts.
  • Hurt your relationships with loved ones.
  • Make it difficult to maintain an optimistic outlook on life."
As some of the examples involved. Though I would argue if one falls for and acts upon the second one, they don't deserve the relationship due to mental weakness, the only true weakness. A personal belief is that one should review actual dangers and act upon a list of options to deal with this and further enhance creativity, but forcefully retrain and redirect your thought process to focus on positivity otherwise more than trivial personal viewings of hostility. The best means forwards. More understanding people do this, however the effects on their ego/self-control will quickly degrade if compounded and with enough weight unless given breaks to recharge. Which is a similar system to how more emulative forms of design in S.I tech tends to work. The material itself also appears to be similar. It talks on how not forcing positivity into the foreground will enevitably cause one to forget or lose it, leaving behind exaggerated negativity. Therefore it will eat you alive and eradicate your mental health and thus also physical health by proxy. In a relationship, such as friends/family or higher level different type of intimacy types of relationships, this often causes one to nuke each-other for no reason. Thus making it seem like it was as bad or worse than an actual problem like being abuse riddled. But then due to how our brain's affective systems work for social activity and our bonding systems, these people tend to be even more negatively impacted. This system goes hand in hand with the one associated with our needs, which often tends to be more positive and neutral leaning. It creates interesting problems when the two go hand in hand. Such as needing to gain something to prevent the loss of something else, and therefore develop a hyperfixation and focus on it which develops mindless extremism.

In terms of the various hybridization of multi-level systems in the brain, this one is probably the easiest one to work with and around. I.E understanding it can allow you an upper hand in social interactions and the ability to reframe entire circumstances and scenarios to work in your favor. People often use it for "deprogramming" people from bad paths in life, but others can rework it to pigeon hole you and smash you into the sewers. Morale builders even in the military often use various understandings of the mind like this to temporarily retain a good enough morale to achieve missions under implausible odds, which can grant higher survivability in general. You can learn being charismatic through understanding these systems. But the thing is usually these people don't know or understand these parts of the brain, and therefore operate more off purely a "give them what they want give them what they need" mindset built off observation.

For a reference of how this system can be combatted on the lowest level, look no further than a man which went to a triple K rally that was designed against them, and through casual conversation lacking any form of hostility and not appearing "toxically positive UWU." that particular member submitted and resigned from such activities. Not every solution has to be brute force or militantly aggressive. As such, this more intelligent means forward is the path of strength and solidarity through only raising the figurative sword if the actual need arises.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top