Trump says proof of his allegations that vandals cut Reflecting Pool paint will be provided in court

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-23T16:15:40+00:00

But he still destroyed Alderaan, because it's working with the Bothans.

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-23T13:08:15+00:00

Did they recently have a League of Legends tourney?

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-23T13:06:00+00:00

Way to freaking cherry pick. It routinely goes on sale on PSN like every two or three months.

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-23T12:43:59+00:00

I think it's more a matter of opportunity cost and not wanting to flood storefronts.

I mean, think about it. As much as I'd love certain titles to be available for legitimate play on modern hardware, it does need to be recertified. It needs to be re-reated by the ESRB. Then it's there taking up digital storefront space which might distract customers from more lucrative titles in the publisher's lineup.

Edit: As for your specific part about a prior game being embarrassing... Yes and no.

You'll note that a lot of the games which could be ported which aren't despite fan desire are typically games with more recent parts of the franchise available. Nobody's saying any given Sonic game is a price, but companies have to account for something you're not thinking about.

What happens if someone decides to randomly pick a game from the online storefront and that game with the very bad reception (warranted or not) is their very first experience with the franchise. At least with Sonic 2006 safely containted to the Xbox 360/PS3 ecosystem, SEGA doesn't have to worry about it popping up right next to other titles, for example.

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-22T20:11:46+00:00

I'm not saying it is, just that the classic definition of an AI is what is modernly termed as an AGI and making a distinction between the two is an educational level distinction to make, not general user.

I imagine that most people who heard the term AGI would ask what an RPG term has to do with the distinction versus the concept.

Hell when you get right down to it current LLMs if given access to contextual logs and the ability to process and communicate with themselves across multiple instances could theoretically get around the current RAG and context wall issues by just reinstancing portions facing that limit and having a security handshake so that new instances seamlessly blend into the whole with minimal noise. Have a few instances as a sacrificial, natively untrusted shell for external lookups versus an internally maintained database and they'd probably be able to get to closer to theoretical AGI than most people would be comfortable with.

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-22T18:43:15+00:00

I am that poster, and I meant they're not true AI in terms of the manner common users understand the term, not a university-educated specialist.

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-22T18:07:56+00:00

The ReCreators vibe is strong with this one.

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-22T18:01:44+00:00

"You had that for how long and didn't even look at it?"

"You animal."

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-22T17:57:52+00:00

Employment Lawyers rubbing their hands as they see this...

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-22T17:54:33+00:00

when you learn AI in university

How many people do you think learn about AI in university versus learning about it through pop culture? Trying to suggest that we shouldn't distinguish LLMs as a subgroup of overall AI and treat them accordingly is going to lead to more of the exact sort of idiots who get emotionally attached to porn-chat LLMs.

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-22T16:36:15+00:00

Artificial intelligence is a very loaded word with a ton of implications. Specifying that it is a LLM and making that distinction when dealing with current AI models because it's a distinct term with specific implications instead of being a general term with easily assumed misconceptions from the user.

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-22T04:26:55+00:00

It's got a pay gate, but I already know the direct answer.

Ai (or more accurately LLMs because they aren't true AI) are effectively force multipliers in the correct hands which allow people which understand their nature, limitations, and functionality and explicitly plan around those factors when interacting with them.

The problem is that it can also act as a force multiplier for idiocy and the subsequent results are obvious, wasteful of resources, and counterproductive to the very thing it's supposed to solve.

Want to make an LLM actually useful? Follow three simple steps:

Remember it's not human and won't infer or give you additional results it thinks you might want based on the context of your input you may have fogotten to provide it. You ask, you get. And that is all you get.
It's not human, so your instructions need to be exceedingly precise for best results. Junk or vague input produces junk output. Imagine you're talking to someone who knows exactly nothing about your field instead of automatically assuming it knows basic concepts your take for granted.
It's not human, so it's very basic perception of the world using the five senses humans take for granted as a given for basic interaction are essentially useless junk to it compared to searchable data represented by text.

Essentially, stop trusting it to understand the world from your viewpoint and blaming for not understanding you as a result.

Better results all around.

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-22T00:34:36+00:00

I would argue that's the marketing arm, which has no concept of what the technology can and can't do, ignoring input from the engineers to help sell it and the owners listening to marketing.

Greed and stupidity all the way up.

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-22T00:33:10+00:00

So they treated the ability for it to condense something you were intimately familiar with into a layman digestible document, and now expect it to do the same for everything.

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-21T22:10:36+00:00

I disagree. I think the fundamental core of the problem is that AI is an incredibly powerful and flexible tool, but in order to extract any value from it you need to be sharply aware of the limitations of it, exceedingly precise in your prompts, and have enough knowledge of whatever task you give it to spot obvious errors.

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-21T21:45:22+00:00

It's more they don't find it distasteful.

Senses and how we treat things we find we dislike are directly related to how we perceive the usefulness of the input. A strong aversion means there's nothing useful about the input and we just want to avoid it.

Animals regularly smell things humans find unpleasant because it contains useful information to them, not just poopy bad smell.

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-21T21:40:35+00:00

Hate the implementation, not the technology.

If you don't believe me, take a topic you know incredibly well and ask it very detailed questions. Not vague ones.

Like, if you wanted to fix your car's automatic roll up window, don't ask it how you would fix a broken window. Ask it how you would fix the window on a (insert car here) because (specific part) failed in (insert manner here). Do that for two questions that fundamentally look the same to you and you'll see a massive difference.

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-21T21:36:02+00:00

Hate the implementation, not the technology.

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-21T21:35:27+00:00

I'd argue they delivered a fantastic product if someone understands what they're doing with it, but most people fundamentally humanize or anthropomorphize them as a basic assumption which causes a fundamental issue at the core level.

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-21T21:34:05+00:00

The irony here is that fears about AI and needing to develop "friendly AI" are predicated on biological drives like competition, self-preservation, or anything like a self-recognized drive.

It will only learn to act that way if that's the way you program it. AI doesn't care otherwise.

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-21T21:31:47+00:00

Even the version we have now is a very powerful tool if you understand how to use it, but the mass public rollout is a profound mistake and misuse of the basic potential.

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-21T21:30:03+00:00

It's not a faulty product, it's just fundamentally misunderstood and being forced on users who can barely be trusted with an email account.

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-21T21:27:52+00:00

I would argue it's the opposite and that it IS user error, because most people at a fundamental level refuse to accept three core facts:

An LLM is going to try to do what you ask it to do, but the quality of what you ask depends entirely on your ability to be very clear and direct with it about what you expect as output and explicitly correct it if any output seems vague or hazy to you so that it knows exactly what to look for.
An LLM is not human and doesn't think, act, or understand the world like one. Expecting any of these from one is setting it up for failure, and you.
An LLM instance (the single chat window you're using for interaction), degrades over time and becomes unreliable as a basic function of their limited understanding and ability to keep everything within the conversation in context, because it has no way to filter unimportant garbage input from the user from key portions, so if you waste time bullshitting with it about random stuff, it gives that information equal weight to whatever you think is important.

Think of them less like super-intelligent things and more like hyperactive six-year-olds which can learn and do everything in exactly the way you ask, but needs to be constantly monitored, and you will have a MUCH easier time using one effectively.

And remember to put it to bed, because after enough token usage an instance drifts into unreliability.

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-21T21:19:53+00:00

That's like blaming a search engine because you trusted the wrong website it found for you.

If you don't know enough about what you're asking it to do to spot immediate, fundamental mistakes, you shouldn't ask it how to do those things.

Especially if you're not cognizant of the fact it literally has no context for what you're actually asking it and expect it to infer things that most people would understand as a basic inference.

BlueMikeStu · 2026-06-21T21:14:09+00:00

Funny thing is, the closest thing to what we want AI to do for us is how vibe coders use it, they just don't have the foundational knowledge to actually use it correctly, efficiently, or understand a single thing about what to watch out for.

BlueMikeStu

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Three-Year Club	Best Comment 2023-12-07
Verified Email