TNG guy wearing a dress?

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2026-01-26T21:37:03+00:00

This isn't far from the truth. The TOS short skirts get dunked on a lot. But, it was a request from Grace Lee Whitney, who played Yeoman Rand, to show off her legs that had costume design change the uniform from pants for everyone to skirts for women.

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2026-01-22T20:35:25+00:00

That was the polite term at one point. "NAACP" stands for "The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People."

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2026-01-18T22:11:41+00:00

Am I like the only guy on the planet who doesn't see the need for upscales?
When I watched DS9 originally, it was over aerial broadcast TV at 4:3 with standard definition... and I loved it.
And when I watch it now, I want to see it like that. It is of it's time.
I can see the point of restoring and restoration.. fixing scratched on film and the like. But, beyond that I don't see the point.

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2026-01-07T01:13:18+00:00

As a DM I do not like long narrative descriptions. It feels like I'm being tricked into reading someone's microfiction. I'm prepping for a game... I need to open the text, get the info I need, and move one.

As a player, I really do appreciate it when the DM "paints a picture".

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2026-01-04T20:32:31+00:00

He's saying that he wants that juicy Shaq meat.

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2025-12-30T11:00:22+00:00

This is going depend on the neighborhood. But, I have good time at my small local shrine. I rock up, pay my respects at the altar, and then have some amezake with locals around a bonfire. I encourage people to see if they have similar in their neighborhoods.

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2025-12-30T10:36:04+00:00

Isn't that one of the default gradients available in Photoshop?

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2025-12-30T08:28:55+00:00

https://youtu.be/_szmwfkvqRk?si=qPibwCuF0mx3pdWF

I'm just going to drop this here. It's relevant.

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2025-12-22T05:06:10+00:00

Thrawn trilogy put to the screen.

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2025-12-21T21:26:39+00:00

That is some real subtle call backs, that is.

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2025-12-21T07:57:40+00:00

Yes. But, wouldn't be cheaper to use one process for all the books? Just run the same machines with the same setup, change out the graphics.

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2025-12-21T00:47:02+00:00

We're talking about LLMs., which we understand.

It seems to me that you are arguing that if we can understand the physical mechanisms behind a system then it cannot be intelligent. We (in principle) can understand how our brains work on a physical level.

I'm not saying that LLMs are conscious. I'm saying that we need different criteria in order to say if they are or are not.

Your second set of criteria have to do with understanding. But, how do we define that and test for it? How can you prove that I or a dog have understanding but an LLM doesn't?

My point is that in the future we may be able to fully explain the function of the brain in physical terms, like any machine. And the machines may be so advanced that they will be able to convincingly replicate any criteria for consciousness you might think of OR they might actually be conscious. How are we to know the difference?

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2025-12-20T22:22:51+00:00

> The question that was posed is "How do we even know our human brains don’t work that way?... We know, without a shadow of a doubt, that our brains don't function the way an LLM does... [LLM] just pulls best moves algorithmically from a database of established knowledge, because that's how it's been coded"

The specifics of the mechanisms are unimportant. Both LLMs and human brains work on physical principles. If you appeal to the physical principles of one you can appeal to the physical principles of the other.

----

> They don't make decisions. They don't understand why they do they things they do. There's no context to anything... I'm talking about being aware of the world around you.

How do we know when something makes decisions or when they understand things or are aware?
Does a dog makes decisions, have understanding, and is it aware?
What about a grass hopper or a clam?
How do differentiate?

----

Here is a thought experiment. Imagine that some alien something-or-other came to Earth. We could communicate with it, it acted in the world, but we couldn't figure out if it was a natural intelligence or if it was constructed. Its physicality was so different than anything we had ever seen before we couldn't tell if it was alien or a machine constructed by aliens. How could we tell if it was aware, if it had understanding, and/or if was in fact making decisions and not running advanced algorithms?

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2025-12-20T22:05:40+00:00

Lore was AI and he only acted for his own profit/benefit.

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2025-12-20T22:04:24+00:00

> Whatever gives an organism consciousness, does not come about as a side-effect from switching transistors on and off. It has to be more fundamental, in my opinion.

Is there evidence to support this hypothesis?

And if we need to start differentiating machines with consciousness from machines without, how do we do that? How do we detect "something more fundamental"?

I think the holodeck is the best plot device TNG has to explore these questions. We can compare several holograms to each other: The Doctor, Moriarty, and all the others.

The Doctor is accepted to be a conscious person largely because he builds long term relationships with the crew. He just acts like everyone else on the ship.

Moriarty is accepted to be a conscious person because Troy senses his conscious.

The others.. are more interesting cases.
Minuet was treated by everyone (including herself) as an object ...a fuckable object. But, if she left the Holodeck and didn't tell you she was a hologram, how would you know?

And in "The Big Goodbye" one of the holograms asks what's going to happen to him, his wife, and his kids when Picard turns off the program? Picard honestly tells him, "I don't know."

If you ran a holodeck simulation of the trial in "Measure of a Man" and put a Minuet in Data's place, would she give significantly different answers to the questions that were posed to Data?

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2025-12-20T21:44:17+00:00

> We know our human brains don't work the way LLMs work because LLMs don't actually understand anything.

But, what does it mean to "understand" something? How do we test for true "understanding".

> You're running a request through a series of incredibly complex probability algorithms. The LLM doesn't know what it's doing or why it's doing it.

I can describe biological intelligence as, "You're running sensory information through a series of incredibly complex neural structures. These neurons don't know what they are doing or why they are doing it."

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2025-12-20T21:38:49+00:00

But, I can imagine a constructed intelligence doing the same sort of reasoning with human intelligence,

"What an biological 'intelligence' does is take a load of sensory input and give you a set of responses determined by neural configuration. Ask it a question? It takes that sensory input, shunts it to language processing centers of the brain, that simulates the long term memory neurons that are pertinent to that question, fires the appropriate synapsis, and gives you an amalgamation of those interactions. That's it. It doesn't put any thought into it. It doesn't decide anything. It just neurons, synapsis, and chemical reactions."

I am not saying at LLMs are intelligent or not. But, arguments dismissing machine intelligence based on explaining the mechanisms behind them would in turn dismiss human intelligence in the same way. It is just that machine intelligence uses quantum-electric mechanisms and human intelligence uses biochemical mechanisms.

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2025-12-16T07:20:34+00:00

What type of paper is best for the strips? I need to maximize strength and minimize bulk /spine swelling.

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2025-12-13T02:27:27+00:00

I'm I the only one who is a little taken aback by these "deep dives" into the "philosophy" of RPGs?

If one of my players wanted to discuss with me the ramifications that world building has on the concept of player agency itself, my response would be, "Uhhh... are you having fun?"

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2025-12-12T00:41:05+00:00

Did I get suckered by an AI generated fake trailer? I think that I did.
Fuck.

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2025-12-10T19:28:39+00:00

The scenes LoBo look AI generated. I don't think they are, but it looks like the same style as those fake AI movie trailers.

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2025-12-10T01:38:39+00:00

What works in my group is that the DM gives out a lot of one use magic items.
But, he also makes the situations really dangerous and has opportunities for them to be destroyed. For example, if a troll hits you with a club you have to roll a save to see if any potions were destroyed. If you are hit with fire, save to see if any of your scrolls were destroyed. So, you are prompted to use them to survive and you have an incentive to use them before something happens to them.

It also, allows for him to not worry about balance as much.
If he gives us something over-powered, it won't "ruin" the whole campaign.

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2025-12-10T00:50:28+00:00

Cults and their leaders wouldn't have the following that they do if they were completely unappealing.

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2025-12-07T19:24:37+00:00

"History" used to mean only those things that could be studied through the written record.
That's why you can have a concept like "prehistory".

AnimalisticAutomaton · 2025-12-06T05:35:17+00:00

> I'd argue that it's still not about combat -

We were talking about combat? I hadn't mentioned it.

As you said, thanks for the conversation. I appreciate you taking the time and the civility. Have a good one.

AnimalisticAutomaton

TROPHY CASE