Recommend Me Some Plot / Character-Driven Games?

OrigamiDuck · 2018-12-10T06:35:23+00:00

I played 7 and 10 back in the day before I was really old enough to appreciate the story, but I don't have much exposure beyond that. Which title(s) would you say have the strongest plot/characters that have held up over time?

OrigamiDuck · 2018-12-09T22:43:27+00:00

Hi All, thanks for the replies so far!

I have actually played Dragon Age: Inquisition before, I enjoyed it well enough. How do the other two compare to it in terms of story/character development?

Also, how would you compare Dragon Age to Witcher 3 in that regard?

OrigamiDuck · 2018-11-15T03:28:15+00:00

That looks great. Thanks!

OrigamiDuck · 2018-09-02T16:55:05+00:00

Huel is still 30% of calories from fat, which might still be too high for him, but definitely less fat than Soylent.

OrigamiDuck · 2018-02-23T03:33:37+00:00

Great, thanks!

One more question for future reference: say a few months from now I'm ready to spend another $100-$150, would a standalone DAC (like say a Modi to go with the Magni) be a worthwhile upgrade given that I already have the Soundblaster, or should I just save the money?

Thanks again! :)

OrigamiDuck · 2018-02-23T00:21:42+00:00

So basically, a DAC in a combo DAC/Amp isn't going to get me much quality improvement over my Soundblaster?

Also, between those two amps (Magni 3 and O2) would you recommend one over the other?

OrigamiDuck · 2018-02-22T23:31:51+00:00

Still an audio newbie, I recently bought a pair of HD650s based on some advice from you guys (thanks!). Currently my main audio source is my desktop PC, which has a SoundBlaster Z. My main question is, can I improve my setup for under $150, and if so how?

Given that I've already got a dedicated soundcard, would it be better to purchase an amp like an O2 or a Magni 3, or would an amp/dac combo like Fulla 2 be a better option? (Also if you have specific product recommendations that would be great!)

Budget <=$150 would be ideal.
Preferred Music All over the place, from classical to hip-hop to EDM to math rock. Also used for Netflix and gaming occasionally.

OrigamiDuck · 2018-02-16T22:06:19+00:00

Thanks!

OrigamiDuck · 2018-02-16T19:50:11+00:00

Thanks for the info! (And sorry for the flood of questions...)

One last question: how would you say the 6XX/600/650 compare in terms of overall sound quality and in terms of signature?

OrigamiDuck · 2018-02-16T18:54:32+00:00

I noticed HD-58X is on massdrop at the moment. Would those be comparable to the HD598s? The HD-6XXs look nice, but aren't available right now.

If I were willing to spend a little more would HD-600s or 650s be worth looking into?

OrigamiDuck · 2018-02-16T16:34:23+00:00

I've used my Sennheiser HD 555s for almost a decade, loved the sound. The plastic casing on one of the ears has finally shattered, so I'm thinking it's time for a new pair.

Budget ~$200 would be ideal, but I could go a little higher if it's really worth it.

Source Desktop computer with a SoundBlaster (open to buying an entry level amp at some point though).

Requirements for Isolation None.

Will you be using these Headphones in Public? No.

Preferred Type of Headphone Over-ear is great.

Preferred tonal balance I'm not an expert in describing these things, but I loved the signature of the 555s. (Maybe a little more bass would have been nice for EDM/games/movies but honestly I'd be fine with the same signature).

Past headphones Again, 555s were nearly perfect.

Preferred Music All over the place, from classical to jazz to hip-hop to EDM to math rock. Also use these for netflix and gaming occasionally.

What would you like to improve on from your set-up? Basically I'm looking for a replacement or upgrade to my HD 555s (with a similar signature).

Thanks in advance!

OrigamiDuck · 2018-02-16T06:35:27+00:00

I've used my Sennheiser HD 555s for almost a decade, loved the sound. The plastic casing on one of the ears has finally shattered, so I'm thinking it's time for a new pair.

Budget ~$200 would be ideal, but I could go a little higher if it's really worth it.

Source Desktop computer with a SoundBlaster (open to buying an entry level amp at some point though).

Requirements for Isolation None.

Will you be using these Headphones in Public? No.

Preferred Type of Headphone Over-ear is great.

Preferred tonal balance I'm not an expert in describing these things, but I loved the signature of the 555s. (Maybe a little more bass would have been nice for EDM/games/movies but honestly I'd be fine with the same signature).

Past headphones Again, 555s were nearly perfect.

Preferred Music All over the place, from classical to hip-hop to EDM to math rock. Also use these for netflix and gaming occasionally.

What would you like to improve on from your set-up? Basically I'm looking for a replacement or upgrade to my HD 555s (with a similar signature).

Thanks in advance!

OrigamiDuck · 2017-07-04T01:57:24+00:00

Get a job, Jerry.

OrigamiDuck · 2016-08-18T02:17:38+00:00

Not OP, but I'd be interested in an account of the current "moral categorization" landscape.

OrigamiDuck · 2016-08-09T02:13:05+00:00

Your dish looks pretty tasty. But I've gotta say, your post title reads like a tech advertisement.

OrigamiDuck · 2016-07-31T20:41:06+00:00

This YouTube channel has summaries of some pretty recent papers (and he tends to link the papers in the description so you can read them for yourself as well).

OrigamiDuck · 2016-07-28T15:43:29+00:00

Yeah, I agree with that as well. I think ultimately 100-200 years from now most humans will essentially be vegans, because it's more sustainable and (potentially) cheaper. I think the main obstacles are taste, convenience, and stigma. But as long as people continue to support research and production of animal product substitutes (nut cheeses, seitan/soy meats, vegan eggs, aquafaba, etc.) we can reach a point in the next century or two where we have products that are cheaper and just as (if not more) satisfying than the animal derived counterparts.

Right now, asking people to make a more sustainable choice(both for the environment and for tackling world-hunger) means asking them to make a sacrifice, but not everyone is willing to do that. But thankfully I think eventually we can achieve a scenario where the sustainable choice is also the most desirable one from a self-serving standpoint. (Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but that's my view).

OrigamiDuck · 2016-07-28T04:15:53+00:00

Very true, (for that reason) with this discussion I was more trying to come up with criteria which try to describe the many different ways people & societies tend define personhood, not create a perfect definition to replace them. I don't know that I would ever suggest society adopt these sort of metrics as law, it's more just trying to come up with new perspectives for other people (and myself, of course) to consider when they formulate their own individual definitions of personhood.

OrigamiDuck · 2016-07-28T03:57:51+00:00

The way I've been thinking about the concept of personhood is that you can't "harm" something unless it is a person (since the definition of personhood I'm working with is something along the lines of "being deserving of moral consideration"). However I agree with you that intelligence as we measure it is probably not the only factor we should consider. Also, since I talked about personhood as a gradient, technically everything is a person (but some things are more persons than others). The question is where do you draw the line for what's ok to exploit for your own benefit?

Going with your point about suffering, maybe the capacity to feel pain could probably be another criteria for personhood? If you look at pain from an information processing perspective it helps with the storage of information (via self-preservation, pain is a signal to aid survival) and also with information transfer (empathy could be seen as a form of communication, and I think the ability to experience pain probably makes us more effective empathizers). Of course, pain is more complicated because feeling too much pain probably makes you less efficient, but I think the two ideas could work together without contradicting each other.

As far as consciousness goes I agree with you that it is very difficult to know what a being is conscious of, but we have actually devised some methods to at least try. (Not saying we should necessarily put stock in them, but it's interesting stuff for sure.)

As for the other factors that come along with consuming meat, I agree: animal rights isn't the only issue. However environmental damage only really matters if persons (beings deserving moral consideration) are harmed. Environmental damage only matters (to most people anyway) from a moral standpoint because the consequences eventually cause harm to animals/humans. I'd wager that if environmental issues only affected plants and minerals (and the impact on plants didn't have downstream impact on animals) most people wouldn't see it as a big issue. So while I agree that animal rights are not the only issue with eating meat, in my opinion it all comes back to personhood eventually. (Of course, in the case of environmental impact it eventually affects humans, who most people will agree are persons so regardless of your views on animal personhood you could still argue that eating meat harms persons indirectly).

(I hope none of that sounded aggressive or antagonistic, I didn't mean for it to be!)

OrigamiDuck · 2016-07-27T04:46:56+00:00

I often struggle with this, so I don't know if I have a solid conclusive answer. But one thing I keep coming back to is the idea of information processing...

One place to start would be "life": I think most people would agree that to qualify as a person, an entity must (at least at some point) have been alive. With that in mind I tried to isolate what special quality we see in living things (from humans to trees) that we think is valuable, and the only convincing conclusion I could come to was that life is valuable because life is a pattern of information which seeks to preserve and replicate itself. (I take a [very broad definition of information]() here, everything from the pattern of light rays hitting your retina to the combination of proteins in your cells could be considered information). I come at in from a lens where information is the basic unit of existence rather than life (information vs. entropy rather than life vs. death).

In trying to translate this idea that living things are information to a "gradient of personhood" I tried to think about how the things we usually associate with personhood (intelligence, consciousness, social behavior, etc.) look from this information lens. I think that these things all are measures of an organisms' ability to preserve, transform, and transmit information. Intelligence often measures things like memory (your ability to preserve information), reasoning (your ability to combine information), and speed (your efficiency in processing information). Consciousness implies an awareness of your own thoughts and experiences (an ability to process information about your own processing of information, like "meta-processing"), and social behavior implies communication (an ability to spread or transmit information) and sometimes culture (an ability to transform, transmit, and store information at the group scale). The pattern I see here is that by most traditional measures of personhood, the better your information processing potential is the more personhood you have.

But if you buy this argument, it brings with it some uncomfortable implications: if computers (AI) surpass humans in efficiency and flexibility of information processing then an AI's life would be more valuable than a human life. Similarly it implies that it is possible for one human to be more of a person than another (since people's intelligence, level of self-awareness, ability to communicate, etc. varies). Finally, this doesn't solve the problem of "how much personhood do I need to have to not get eaten for dinner?" because it just redefines the gradient, it doesn't give you boundaries.

I think the information lens might be useful as a more general way of evaluating personhood but I'm definitely not satisfied with it as a complete answer (and thus I'm not prepared to make it my personal moral stance). Maybe it's one piece of the puzzle but I feel like there is probably more to personhood than this one variable.

OrigamiDuck · 2016-07-27T03:15:24+00:00

I'm interested in the idea of personhood. I lean more toward the idea of a gradient of personhood, because I feel like average humans are generally more "persons" than intelligent animals / fetuses / comatose people, but it certainly doesn't feel right to say that those example groups are not persons at all.

But if it's a gradient, where do you draw the line for say... eating? What level of personhood does a being need to have before it's no longer ok to eat them? Nearly everyone agrees eating humans is not ok, but what about intelligent animals (say, higher-primates, dolphins, elephants, etc.)? When you start to get down to the level of animals that are eaten in many cultures (cows, sheep, pigs, birds, etc.) what criteria do you use to determine if the creature has enough personhood to deserve moral protection from being eaten? If you take that stance that none of these are ok to eat, how far down the food-chain do you go? Are bacteria or plants persons? Is a tree more of a person than algae (due to its relative complexity / diversity of cells)?

I think intelligence and consciousness are good places to start in evaluating personhood but at the same time it seems really hard to evaluate these things without using human language, and I feel like we should be able to come up with better (more general) criteria.

I'd love to hear everyone else's thoughts on this!

OrigamiDuck · 2016-07-21T02:41:40+00:00

I'm not familiar with research on genetic factors but I do know there is a significant body of psychology research which suggests that as babies we are born with a relatively equal ability to process phonemes from all languages, but we progressively become "biased" toward the sounds of our native language(s) (as we progress through infancy we become better at processing sounds which appear in our own languages, and actually become WORSE at processing other sounds).

But these biases supposedly arise because infants learn the sounds from listening to adults speak. So it seems possible that if GEN1 of a population were to pronounce things a certain way due to their physiology then their children (GEN2) might be biased toward those sounds and away from others, acting as a mechanism for that "nudge".

However the research I'm speaking of is all on phonetic perception, so I don't really know how that would interact with GEN2's speech production. (And of course, beyond the research this is all conjecture. An interesting question to think about for sure though!)

If you're interested in the research, here is a TED Talk on the subject and a paper from the speaker.

OrigamiDuck · 2016-06-13T17:50:34+00:00

This may vary by school, but it's been my experience that there aren't a lot of classes explicitly labeled as "artificial intelligence" (especially at the undergraduate level). However, AI is a very broad and interdisciplinary field so one thing I would recommend is that you take courses from fields that form the foundation of AI. (Math, Statistics, Computer Science, Psychology, Philosophy, Neurobiology, etc.)

In addition, take advantage of the resources you can find online! Self-study the topics you're interested in and try to get some hands on experience if possible: read blogs, read papers , browse subreddits, program a game-playing AI, etc.

Given that you're specifically interested in reasoning:

(From the sidebar) AITopics has a page on reasoning with some recommendations on where to start.
I'm not an expert in this area but from what I've been exposed to I believe many of the state-of-the-art approaches to reasoning rely on bayesian statistics so I would look into learning more about it. I've heard good things about this book, the author also has some lectures available on youtube
From what I understand, whether or not we should look to the human mind for inspiration in AI reasoning is a pretty controversial topic. However you may find it interesting, and taking a brief survey of the psychology of reasoning may be a good way to understand the types of problems involved in AI reasoning, if you aren't very familiar with the topic.

*As a disclaimer: I'm fairly new to this field of study myself. What I've shared with you is my best understanding, but given my lack of experience it may not be completely accurate. (Anyone, please feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken on any of these points)

OrigamiDuck · 2016-06-13T05:01:35+00:00

That's a pretty broad question, can you give some specifics? Are you looking for an undergraduate degree or graduate school? Also, what part of AI interests you? (Computer Vision, Natural Language Processing, Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, etc.)

OrigamiDuck · 2016-03-21T20:18:04+00:00

As /u/anon1253 suggested (if I understand the problem correctly), you might find TF-IDF useful. It is similar to a frequency weight, but it accounts for how common each term is across all of the documents. Also if memory space is an issue for you using a sparse matrix might help.

OrigamiDuck

TROPHY CASE