Alaknar
@Alaknar@sopuli.xyz
- Comment on Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy 9 hours ago:
Actually, it’s twice as large!
- Comment on Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy 9 hours ago:
- Comment on Mom with the real questions 15 hours ago:
Nobody wants any of them, they’re old and pretty and also worth exactly zero euros.
You’d be VERY surprised.
- Comment on Wikipeter was the founder of the site in 1993 when he wanted to know more about model trains without having to visit the library 4 days ago:
if I was annoyed enough, I’d do something like hang a picture in the house taking a dig at Wikipedia and then the interview could mention that and now it could be in the article about the house taking a dig at them.
- Comment on EU lawmakers to study ban 'loot boxes' and other addictive features in video games 5 days ago:
Fun fact! These cases, like the bananas, snails, or carrots being classified as fruit, were all being used as examples of “lol, dumb EU bureaucracy”, but were actually examples of brilliant lawmaking.
The curvature of bananas was specifically aimed at making it harder for China to flood the EU market with their bananas, thus saving local production from going bust.
The snails were a similar case to the carrots. The EU has subsidies for jam makers, to make them more competitive with non-EU jam makers. As it turned out, in one region in France, people made jam from carrots, but “jam” was defined in legislature as “a product made from fruits”. Which meant that the EU could spend a lot of time and money on re-writing the original law allowing the subsidies… or just redefine carrots as “fruits” for the specific purpose of that one law. As in: nobody in the EU considers carrots as fruits, it was only and specifically done to allow those French farmers to get subsidies for their jam making.
It’s brilliant and efficient.
- Comment on ‘Baldur’s Gate 3’ Maker Promises ‘Divinity’ Will Be ‘Next Level’ 1 week ago:
it’s about trust. Trust is gradually built item by item
But all it takes is one out-of-context quote to drop this accrued trust back to zero?
Them starting using slopgen reduces that trust. It reduces it enough so I don’t trust what they are saying anymore.
Honestly? This part is confusing me super hard. “They say the truth, my trust goes up. They say the truth again, my trust goes down and I no longer trust what they were saying before” - help me understand that.
I would get it if it was the other way around - “they say they don’t use slopgen, but that’s outed to be a lie, my trust goes down”, right?
because for a company the line going up is way more important that anything else, and honouring words demonstrably doesn’t put the line up
But isn’t it exactly the opposite? They admit to utilising AI tools (which don’t equal “slopgen”), which means they care more about trust and honesty, than the line going up, no?
And this is all extremely confusing to me specifically in the context of what Larian said - yes, they use AI tools, but they don’t use them for the games themselves (like, I don’t know, writing lines, or generating textures), they use them to speed up the menial tasks and give their artists more time to spend on making art. What’s wrong with that?
- Comment on I cannot imagine what lawsuit led to this 2 weeks ago:
“DO NOT DANGEROUS”
That’s pretty good life advice in general.
- Comment on ‘Baldur’s Gate 3’ Maker Promises ‘Divinity’ Will Be ‘Next Level’ 2 weeks ago:
OK, yeah, I get what you mean now.
I don’t agree on a fundamental level, though. Anything and everything could go to shit at any time. You could get killed on a bus stop, your favourite grocery brand might be outed to be using slave labour, Larian could start using AI instead of human work for everything…
With that approach, might as well hide in the woods, disconnect from civilisation and wait for the world to end.
I personally reject that attitude. I think we should support what’s good while it’s good and stop supporting it when it goes bad. And, to me, the way Larian uses AI is not “it went bad already”. Like it or not, the tools exist. They’re everywhere. A single (small-ish) company rejecting its use out of principle is not going to make a dent on that, it won’t even be registered within the margin of error among the billions, if not trillions, of monthly impressions AI companies get from teenagers talking to chat-bots.
And even if it did, it doesn’t matter - AI companies are not making profit anyway. Actually, fewer users is better for them, because they’re actively losing money every time someone uses their product. The whole AI bubble is propped up on the largest circlejerk in history and users are the least important, if not flat out insignificant, aspect of it.
I think there are good ways to use AI. Like Corridor Crew, using it to create things that are just financially completely out of their range. It can allow people to bridge the gap between small and massive productions.
And don’t get me wrong, the fact that it’s originally trained on stolen data is important, but… Kind of irrelevant in this case - and that’s for two reasons:
- Companies like Corridor Crew mostly use AI that they self-train, which means that no stealing happens. We don’t know what Larian does.
- Even if Larian uses publicly available models that are trained on stolen data… fuck me, we should be going after the people who stole the data, not the end users!
Would I prefer if they didn’t use AI at all? Sure! But am I going to start shitting on the entire company just because they do? Hell no! Their products are still made with care and love and humanity at their core. Just listen to interviews from Jennifer English or Neil Newbon - they praise both the VO company and Larian for their amazing approach.
And finally - the “war on Larian” would make much more sense if we also learned that they’re firing concept artists - but they’re doing the opposite - they have open positions for concept artists, character artists, environment artists, etc., etc. They’re currently hiring these people!
So, yeah, it’s just a lot of noise over practically nothing, in my opinion.
- Comment on Larian CEO Responds to Divinity Gen AI Backlash: 'We Are Neither Releasing a Game With Any AI Components, Nor Are We Looking at Trimming Down Teams to Replace Them With AI' 2 weeks ago:
It’s being used in the pre-concept art phase, which is when you grab literally anything to do a very generic “here’s my idea” demonstration. It can be a screenshot from a game you recently played, a cinema poster, a photo of your cat, something you found on DeviantArt or Pinterest, a doodle you made with a pencil, cloth fragment, an interesting rock you found on a stroll, simple render, anything.
But, getting all these takes a lot of time - you have something in your head and now you need to find an image or an item that will more or less represent it. So you spend hours on Google Images trying to refine your search, only so that you can then post it on the ideas board, and for it to be replaced completely by actual concept art.
This is where they’re utilising GenAI. And they’re not even replacing this process entirely, they’re using GenAI on top of everything else - basically, using all the tools available to speed up the process.
And, yes, sure, “it at least informs the concept art”, but that’s kind of the point of that entire phase of development. Concept art doesn’t grow in a void, the designers of the game are not the concept artists.
- Comment on Larian CEO Responds to Divinity Gen AI Backlash: 'We Are Neither Releasing a Game With Any AI Components, Nor Are We Looking at Trimming Down Teams to Replace Them With AI' 2 weeks ago:
Yeah, you clearly have no clue what you’re talking about, but just want to be outraged.
No, that’s not what they’re using it for.
Pre-concept art phase is when you grab literally anything to do a very generic “here’s my idea” demonstration. It can be a screenshot from a game you recently played, a cinema poster, a photo of your cat, something you found on DeviantArt or Pinterest, a doodle you made with a pencil, cloth fragment, an interesting rock you found on a stroll, simple render, anything.
But, getting all these takes a lot of time - you have something in your head and now you need to find an image or an item that will more or less represent it. So you spend hours on Google Images trying to refine your search, only so that you can then post it on the ideas board, and for it to be replaced completely by actual concept art.
This is where they’re utilising GenAI. And they’re not even replacing this process entirely, they’re using GenAI on top of everything else - basically, using all the tools available to speed up the process.
Concept artists then still take over (they have 27 of them and open positions to hire more - right now) and create concept art, which is then turned into assets by appropriate artists (they have a bunch of open positions for artists right now as well).
All this anti-AI panic has blown this so far out of proportion that it’s almost comical.
- Comment on ‘Baldur’s Gate 3’ Maker Promises ‘Divinity’ Will Be ‘Next Level’ 2 weeks ago:
Yeah, I had trouble understanding your point. Could you elaborate?
- Comment on Larian CEO Responds to Divinity Gen AI Backlash: 'We Are Neither Releasing a Game With Any AI Components, Nor Are We Looking at Trimming Down Teams to Replace Them With AI' 2 weeks ago:
They’re not using AI for free assets.
- Comment on ‘Baldur’s Gate 3’ Maker Promises ‘Divinity’ Will Be ‘Next Level’ 2 weeks ago:
Soo… “Larian just said they use AI, but corpos lie” - meaning they don’t use AI?
Because, considering they have active job openings for art and concept positions, we know they’re not replacing people with AI.
- Comment on ‘Baldur’s Gate 3’ Maker Promises ‘Divinity’ Will Be ‘Next Level’ 2 weeks ago:
I feel like replacing low-quality, quick-and-dirty doodles (often by non-artist members of the team) with medium-quality AI is fine and doesn’t pose a threat to the job security of concept artists (as exemplified by Larian currently hiring more concept artists).
If you’re just against any use of GenAI, then I get it - it is controversial due to the way it’s trained, and I’d prefer if they weren’t using it, but at least in terms of “AI replacing humans” it’s a non-issue in this case.
- Comment on ‘Baldur’s Gate 3’ Maker Promises ‘Divinity’ Will Be ‘Next Level’ 2 weeks ago:
It was a slip of the tongue because it was Swen himself posting that on social media, not a PR department.
However, he explained that the entirety of concept art is being made by humans - 27 of them right now, but they’re hiring more.
- Comment on Larian CEO Responds to Divinity Gen AI Backlash: 'We Are Neither Releasing a Game With Any AI Components, Nor Are We Looking at Trimming Down Teams to Replace Them With AI' 2 weeks ago:
No, it doesn’t.
Doodles are not concept art. Ideation is not concept art.
- Comment on ‘Baldur’s Gate 3’ Maker Promises ‘Divinity’ Will Be ‘Next Level’ 2 weeks ago:
OK, let’s make this clear: do you think they’re using AI for making concept art?
And drop that LLM bit, it’s just tiring. It’s as old and tiresome as the “MS is paying you” bit.
- Comment on ‘Baldur’s Gate 3’ Maker Promises ‘Divinity’ Will Be ‘Next Level’ 2 weeks ago:
I mean, if you just want to invent and imagine things and then get angry at them, go ahead.
I’m just trying to tell you that Larian isn’t replacing anything or anyone with AI, they’re using it to help with the foundational stage of some processes, which is how it’s supposed to be used. Throw shit at the wall and see what sticks, then work off of that.
Like… It’s hilarious to complain about their use of AI like that in the context of the fact that they currently employ 27 concept artists and are hiring more.
- Comment on Larian CEO Responds to Divinity Gen AI Backlash: 'We Are Neither Releasing a Game With Any AI Components, Nor Are We Looking at Trimming Down Teams to Replace Them With AI' 2 weeks ago:
What he actually said was that they use it in the “ideation” phase of concept art. Basically: throwing shit on the wall and seeing what sticks. After that, the process is taken over by any of their almost 30 concept artists on payroll.
- Comment on Larian CEO Responds to Divinity Gen AI Backlash: 'We Are Neither Releasing a Game With Any AI Components, Nor Are We Looking at Trimming Down Teams to Replace Them With AI' 2 weeks ago:
The actual quote from Swen is that they use it in the “ideation” phase of concept art. Basically: throwing shit on the wall and seeing what sticks. After that, the process is taken over by any of their almost 30 concept artists on payroll.
- Comment on ‘Baldur’s Gate 3’ Maker Promises ‘Divinity’ Will Be ‘Next Level’ 2 weeks ago:
Larian: “We use cars to get to the gym”.
You: “The exercise at the gym stage is really crucial to building muscles. I don’t like cars and think that using it at such an important stage will inevitably mean it ends up influencing the training”.
- Comment on ‘Baldur’s Gate 3’ Maker Promises ‘Divinity’ Will Be ‘Next Level’ 2 weeks ago:
Edit: Turns out Larian is going to use gen AI for concept art. I guess fuck all those concept artists trying to get entry level jobs. Very disappointed.
It’s misinformation. They have almost 30 concept artists employed. They use GenAI for quick ideation, not for concept art.
- Comment on ‘Baldur’s Gate 3’ Maker Promises ‘Divinity’ Will Be ‘Next Level’ 2 weeks ago:
Oh, stop with this nonsense.
They are employing almost 30 concept artists, their art style is extremely unique. Just look at the Elves in DOS2.
They use the tools available to them. If quick iteration of the “foundations” of ideas is improved by the use of GenAI, why not use it? It’s already integrated into the products they’re paying for (like Photoshop).
It’s like saying “they shouldn’t be using Google Images or artbooks when developing concept art”, it’s just silly.
- Comment on I dunno 3 weeks ago:
I’ll take that as an admission of being wrong then
Whatever makes you feel better. :)
- Comment on I dunno 3 weeks ago:
Sorry, mate, TLDR.
I skimmed through it, I’m glad you learned some new concepts, still find it hilarious that you’re then trying to turn it around and pretend like I didn’t understand something, but it’s all good fun.
Enjoy your newfound knowledge and maybe work on not being so prickly.
- Comment on I dunno 3 weeks ago:
Which would explain why you don’t know The Distributive Law, which is taught in Year 7
Me: consistently using the Distributive Law throughout the thread.
You: “Which would explain why you don’t know The Distributive Law, which is taught in Year 7”
How does that work again?
No, just evidence to back up your claims, but of course you don’t have any
I showed you two, you showed yourself one - how many more do you need?
You know reading things again doesn’t change what’s written right??
True, but reading again carefully would change what you thought was written, friend.
still say, do all addition first
OK, here’s a challenge for you - quote the bit that says “do all addition first”.
Well, apparently you are, since there are no Maths textbooks listed in the sources
Awww, you’re so cute! You think all maths knowledge only comes from school textbooks! <3
Let’s go to the screenshot… (…) Nope, see screenshot of you saying they are the same
Ah, so you don’t know what “context” is. Got it. I’ll try to keep things easier to understand for you going forward.
Now you’re just rehashing the same already-debunked rubbish. The whole point of the mnemonics is for those who don’t understand, just follow these steps
In which case they will often make mistakes, as shown by the “9 minus whatever plus something” equation I did. Again, I get that you’re only on your “day two on the Internet” so you’re not aware of it, but these kinds of equations cause people A LOT of trouble.
Don’t get me wrong - I get what you’re saying. That if the people who don’t understand the order of operations understood the Distributive Law, then their lack of understanding of the order of operations wouldn’t matter. But, I hope, you get where this line of thinking fails, right?
Did that already with the textbooks and worked examples. Maybe you need to read it slowly?
Ah, so you’re saying that a site teaching maths is wrong, and your proof is the fact that you don’t understand how sentences work? Cool, cool.
Nope. Again let’s go to the screenshot…
Which proves what, in your mind…?
AS doesn’t reinforce doing A before S?
A is not before S. A is equal to S in the order of operations. As proven here, here, here or here, which also conveniently mentions the two different mnemonics in PEMDAS and BODMAS (where, I’m sure your keen eye will notice, the D and M are flipped).
Here’s a short quote from the second to last source:
Multiplication and division can be done together. In other words, it doesn’t matter if you do division or multiplication first, but they must be done after parentheses and exponents and before addition and subtraction. (…) Addition and subtraction also work together. You can do subtraction first, or you can do addition first. They are part of the same step, however, they can only be done after items in parentheses, exponents, and any multiplication and division.
So, there’s that.
Yep, you’ve got none. You thought Wikipedia counted as a Maths textbook
No, I thought you were capable of checking the sources on the bottom of the article. My bad. But now I also understand that you wouldn’t consider actual mathematical research as sources, because it needs to be a school book for you. I hope the university article links above will be good enough?
I knew it all along - you were the one saying that the brackets matter in PE(MD)(AS), which we’ve now comprehensively debunked 😂
You have an extremely weird fixation on brackets, friend. The only thing we’ve debunked is your understanding of mathematical fundamentals and reading skills. :(
No they weren’t! You have such a short memory, no wonder you ended up contradicting yourself! 🤣 Let’s go to the screenshot…
Oh no! You caught me on misremembering one of the couple of examples I gave you! NOOOOOO! My life is RUINED!
So now, again, why did you start talking about
1 + 3if the examples were2 - 2and2 / 2?you can deflect again 😂
Awww… You can’t answer these questions? I mean, I’m not surprised considering what you’ve shown so far but I was hoping you’d at least try.
Let’s go to the screenshot, again…
And where are the brackets, friend? Do your keen eyes see
(2-2)or whatever, or2+(-2)?But, as I see you’ll just never let go of this misconception of yours, here you are:
1.7 Negative numbers and the use of brackets
Rules of negative numbers
The rules for using negative numbers can be summarised as follows:
Addition and subtraction
- Adding a negative number is the same as subtracting a positive 50 + (-30) = 50 – 30 = 20
- Subtracting a negative number is the same as adding a positive 50 – (-30) = 50 + 30 = 80
You can see the exact same notation as I used, in the exact same context. When you read the rest of that Level 1 introductory lesson, you’ll also learn that you can actually ONLY use brackets to denote negative numbers, like so:
2 + (2), which would equal to2 - 2. Incredible, I know!Nope. your point that brackets matter in PE(MD)(AS) is still wrong, as proven 😂
I mean… Come on - brackets DO matter in PEMDAS, they’re the very first item on the list (Brackets == Parentheses). You’re getting all confused here.
As to the notation of “PE(MD)(AS)” - you may be surprised to learn, but brackets used in the context of language don’t mean the same thing as brackets used in the context of maths, which means that the “(MD)” doesn’t somehow mean I was suggesting these should be considered to… always be in brackets? Like, I don’t even know what you were trying to say here.
says person who proved it was wrong 😂
Again, it’s OK to have a vivid imagination, but you’re just making yourself look silly when you talk about it with others as if it’s fact.
Nope! You claimed it was entirely different if you did that. Again, let’s go to the screenshot…
Yes, I agree, the way I worded that was poor. Setting pronumerals to 1 is the same as just removing them from the notation completely.
says the person actually trying to do that, as proven by the screenshots 😂
It’s OK, you already understood the core concept of what I meant, I firmly believe that we can get you to understand the whole thing within a week! :)
- Comment on I dunno 3 weeks ago:
So you want to keep it here, because the other is full of screenshots proving you wrong and you want to ignore them?? 🤣🤣🤣
Again with the reading comprehension issues? No, friend, I’m suggesting you keep responding where we were already talking, instead of here.
- Comment on I dunno 3 weeks ago:
I know that you finally understood what I was talking about, as shown by your replies in the other comment, but it’s OK to keep it all to a single thread.
- Comment on I dunno 3 weeks ago:
says person who has no evidence whatsoever
Yes, because I finished third grade in primary school. Do you also expect evidence of gravity?
And the questions I did ask you didn’t answer anyway
Go back and read the comments again. I know they’re getting lengthy, but I’m sure if you put your mind to it, you can find the answers.
Which proved you were wrong
Yeah, if you ignore what the text says and just assume it does what you want, then sure, it proves me wrong. However, if you actually read the letters on the screenshot, you’ll find that it does not, in fact, prove me wrong, it does the opposite.
Well, here you go proving you have a severe comprehension problem anyway… 😂
Oh wow, so you’re also incapable of scrolling down to the sources part of the article…?
Yep, gives the same result, but does not say that the number and it’s inverse are the same thing 😂
Yeah, speaking of reading comprehension - I never said anything like that. I said that, in terms of the order of operations, addition/subtraction and multiplication/division are equal, because they can be inverted (subtraction into addition of negative numbers, division into multiplication of fractions) to achieve, as you observed, the exact same result. Which means that - if you ensure that children learn and understand that concept, you can skip subtraction and division from the mnemonics, because children will understand that - again, in terms of order of operations - division = multiplication, and subtraction = addition.
Which also wasn’t a Maths textbook
OK, how about this: let’s do what grown up mathematicians do: prove that what I linked to is wrong.
Which they never are (…) Nope, no-one thinks that
One more time: welcome to the Internet, I’m sure you’ll find many surprises here, but overall it’s a pretty great place.
Addition first for 9-3+2 is +(9+2)-3=+11-3=8 same correct answer as left to right, which is why the textbook teaches you to do it that way
I like how you’re doing exactly what I’m talking about while still saying I’m incorrect.
Which you’re demonstrated repeatedly that you don’t, and here we are
OK, sure, quote one example equation I did here that proves I’m not understanding these concepts. :)
Which is a totally valid thing to do, as is taught by the textbook
But is not reinforced by the mnemonic itself. Reading comprehension, remember?
Which is also a valid thing to do. That’s the whole point, it does not matter which order you do addition and subtraction 😂
I’m glad I was able to explain this to you. You go ahead and pretend like you’re explaining it to me, I’m just happy you finally managed to understand that.
And when they do calculate the addition first, they get an answer of 8, as I just proved a few comments back 😂 Add all the positive numbers, then subtract the total of all the negative numbers. This is so not complicated, and yet you seem to have trouble understanding it
See above.
From an example of how 2+2 and 1+3 aren’t the same thing, even though they equal the same value, which you are now trying to avoid addressing because you know it proves you are wrong 😂
Why are you bringing
1 + 3into the mix when the examples were2 + 2and2 * 2? What are you trying to say here?I’m starting to wonder if you do, given you think 2/2 is the same thing as 2x½ - one has a fraction, the other doesn’t, but you think they are the same thing 🙄
I’m going to ask you a couple of questions so you can research that and then pretend to explain them to me, like you did above:
- What is the result of
2 / 2? - What is the result of
2 * ½? - What is the reciprocal of 2?
says person not remembering that they brought it up to begin with… 😂
There’s no confusion from my side. I understand how brackets work and that was a perfectly valid use - for readability’s sake.
says person who thinks doing addition first for 9-3+2 is 4
Now you’re just inventing things I never said. That’s not nice.
Not for 2-2 they don’t. Go ahead and cite one. I’ll wait
It wasn’t
2 - 2, tho. Or did you fail to read that correctly too?Which proves my point that you can do addition and subtraction in any order, given you just admitted that 2-2 and -2+2 give the same result 😂
Again, I’m glad you’re slowly getting to the point I was making. It’s weird how you’re still phrasing it like I was somehow wrong, but I’m just happy you learned something.
The exact same thing as an expression written without pronumerals 😂 I see you’re still not understanding how pronumerals work then
Considering that’s exactly what I did, how do you see that as me not understanding pronumerals? I’m asking out of sheer curiosity at this point.
and thus proving again that they can be done in any order 😂 It’s so hilarious watching you prove yourself wrong (…) [and the rest of the comment]
You’re so cute when you’re trying to turn this whole argument on its head after realising how silly your initial points were! <3
- What is the result of
- Comment on I dunno 3 weeks ago:
You do you, friend. Whatever makes you feel better about your ignorance.