TheTechnician27

Is the camera icon in the bottom left part of that 95%?

How big is their team?

If a few paragraphs of reading into the article we're supposed to be discussing is too much, I'm not sure why you're here trying to discuss it.

I'm 100% with you. Bad art with genuine effort put into it has a charm of its own. I understand the team's mistake, but it's still a mistake.

Please open this article, Ctrl+F down to "% who say the increased use of artificial intelligence in daily life makes them feel ...", and tell me which country is at the very bottom, with 16% "more concerned than excited", 66% "equally concerned and excited", and 22% "more excited than concerned".

It's like you're refusing to understand the concept of a cultural barrier.

it's the AIs fault for not being good enough to hide it.

"if that choice hurt your experience, the fault is not in the tool. It is in our own shortcomings."

The director literally outright says it's their fault for using the tool.

And what do you mean "got caught"? It's very obvious. They mistakenly thought most audiences would enjoy it, not that audiences wouldn't notice. Which makes sense given the overwhelming difference in the perception of AI between SK and the West. He even outright says he expected people to notice: "I expected some of you would be disappointed by our use of AI. I did not expect it to become this big."

In Indonesian, it's "lastborn tooth".

Incidentally, we keep track of translations on Wiktionary, and we recently added a picture dictionary so you can see the names of the other teeth too. ^_^

Edit: Also, incisors in Japanese are "gate teeth", which I think is lovely.

"The truth is, we spent a long time trying to tell this game's story with cutscenes made entirely by our own hands," the statement goes on. "The results were devastating every time. We came to believe we could not properly deliver this game's complex, difficult narrative that way, and that is why we turned to AI. But if that choice hurt your experience, the fault is not in the tool. It is in our own shortcomings."

Man, if this is true – that they agonized over the cutscenes but decided they couldn't and that AI would be better* – then I feel legitimately bad for them.

I went in assuming it was strictly a lazy "ah, fuck it" kind of thing, but even though this still wouldn't be acceptable, it seems like this team really is hard-working, cared about the final product, and actually did think AI could deliver a good experience. Deluded, but that seems like part of a larger culture of delusion in SK.*

* Notably, the article remarks on how sentiment around AI in South Korea is vastly more positive than e.g. the US.

So anyway, Stanford Online and MIT OpenCourseware.

That's because they're calling you diabetic, which means you're really sweet. ❤️

McAfee, the producer of anti-virus software, used two freely available AI models to test more than 21,000 travel images. One of the models identified 91% of images accurately while the other got 87%. Staff were then asked to replicate the experiment with their own pictures and became uncomfortable with how easy their travels were pinpointed.

There's no reason a GPT can't be just as accurate as an expert GeoGuessr player if not moreso, so it checks out.

Oh yeah, well Russia found a copy of The Sims 3 in a Ukrainian Neptune missile, so now they're even!

🤓 Point of clarification: primary, secondary, and tertiary sources refer to the proximity to the original information, not to their reliability.

• A primary source would be something like a study on a drug.
• A secondary source would be something like a news article discussing the study or a meta-analysis collating a bunch of studies on that drug.
• A tertiary source would be something like a Wikipedia article or a section of a textbook discussing the drug as a whole.

Secondary and tertiary sources often comprise both the most reliable and unreliable sources. 🤓

(Ik what you meant by "primary" lol)