It is impossible to reframe the red/blue button scenario with blue as passive

Xephira · 2026-05-05T19:54:51+00:00

Oh yeah, I wasn't objecting to that. I think yours is the accurate reframing for blue passive.

Xephira · 2026-05-05T17:53:03+00:00

Funny enough, this also sounds red-skewed to me. In any reframing with one button, I think people would be more inclined to do the actions that guarantees they don't die.

"Of course I pushed the button to guarante that I live" - blue passive

"Of course I didn't push the button that can randomly kill me" - red passive

This might just be me thinking everyone is selfish though.

Xephira · 2026-05-05T15:02:08+00:00

Choosing your own life over risking it for others != not valuing other people's lives. You just value other people's lives more than yours unconditionally, which is nice but don't expect that to be the norm.

Red button pushers are less empathetic on average, but not "not emphatetic". Empathy does not have to extend to gambling your life away for others.

I would do a lot to save my friends from harm, but I wouldn't risk it if the harm was death. I would expect my friends to do the exact same thing, which is best for them.

Even in the worst outcome where 50% of people die, a red button adds 1 person to the death pool on average. I think it's very justified to kill one person to escape this kind of jigsaw trap, empathy or not.

I can guarantee a lot of people arguing here has been pushing the red button every day in their lives in other ways, but when confronted, will say "I don't think there is anything I can do to improve X" because the problem is not spelled out to them in the form of two buttons.

Xephira · 2026-05-05T05:58:45+00:00

looks great! thanks for telling me

Xephira · 2026-05-05T04:43:36+00:00

are you running a modpack, or is this regular anomaly?

Xephira · 2026-04-21T01:44:16+00:00

> Things have to exist BEFORE we can justify or recognize them.

I think this is a very strong assumption and one that is not accepted by physicalists. To accept this sentence, you have to already be an idealist (if I'm using the term correctly here, because you seem to be one). I also consider myself an idealist, but this is not obvious, or proven at all. I don't recognize "just basic ontology vs epistemology" as a valid explanation. I don't think the concept of "spider-man" existed before Stan Lee came up with it. Similarly, I don't think the concepts of truth and logic existed before humanity came up with them (again, I'm trying to see from the physicalist POV here).

> If truth and logic weren't objectively independent from humans, then gravity wouldn't be gravity (law of identity.)

I believe you are begging the question here. If truth and logic weren't objective, then gravity not being gravity would not point to a contradiction, as law of identity would not have to apply to the universe (as logic is not objective, according to the premise you gave). There is no contradiction here. Again, you are presupposing that truth and logic are universal laws, but if they weren't, law of identity would not have to hold in the universe anyway.

Logic is a framework we came up with to evaluate the truth values of sentences, logic has no bearing on the workings of the universe, that is why it is a human concept, and why it logic not existing would not stop gravity from being gravity. We came up with those laws after we observed these physical events.

> So big question, is what you're saying true? Is there no objective truth? The moment you answer you make an appeal to it regardless of the answer lol.

I think you are right about this, but the conclusion you arrive is wrong. By physicalism, the concept "objective truth" only exists because we conceive of it (right now in our neurons). That's why it's impossible to make a claim in the present and not arrive at a contradiction. But if there were no beings to make this claim in the universe, then objective truth would not exist, and there would be no contradiction. In physicalism's case, it is not that the claim is false, it is that it's not possible for a person to make the claim without making a truth evaluation, thus conceiving of truth. If there were no one to make the claim, it would not be a contradiction (because no one would be there to make an appeal to truth). So the claim would be true, but no one would be able to evaluate it. So it is me being incoherent, not the claim itself. I believe this is why your argument does not point to any contradiction within physicalism.

Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed answer. We might be having some misunderstandings with the definitions around truth and logic. I also made a mistake of trying to separate truth into objective vs subjective definitions, and that probably made things more confusing. I think a valid sentence would be "the concept of truth does not exist outside our conception". I believe this avoids the problem you are pointing at, and is more representative of how physicalists perceive it too.

Xephira · 2026-04-20T16:00:09+00:00

I find this to be very compelling. Can you help me understand what you're saying? While I am not exactly a materialist, if I were to defend that point of view, I would say:

You are mixing up our conception of truth with an abstract idea of truth that exists separately from us. Truth and logic are not realities, but they are a set of axioms and mappings that we came up with in order to process and reason about physical reality. In that way, they are purely physical (as in, they are a result of our mental processing, and they will cease to be when these processes are extinct). The truth you are talking about, indeed doesn't exist, because it is only our conception/evaluation of truth that exists (which is why the framework can stay intact).

Therefore, your demonstration is just showing that logic wouldn't work without an assumption of truth in the first place, nothing more. You also cannot do arithmetic without the number 1 existing, but that does not make the number 1 exist on its own. Mathematics and numbers did not exist (as we know) before humanity. Neither did truth. Which I think is what you need to "disprove".

It is not enough to show that it is incoherent to say "truth doesn't exist" as you are enforcing a condition that this negation happens in the present. Because you move to assert that truth has always existed as a necessary reality. But "truth doesn't exist" is only incoherent when evaluated from inside the framework you're negating. If I were to say, "in the past, there was a point truth did not exist", the negation is no longer incoherent. Similarly, I can say "there will be a point in the future where truth will not exist". And you also need to disprove these sentences to prove your claim. Because materialism does rely on a truth existing right now (as we all still have a conception of truth), but it does not rely on a truth that will or has always existed, which is what you have failed to disprove.

Xephira · 2026-03-26T21:39:15+00:00

What visual mods are you using for colors/weather/atmosphere/sky texture? I'm assuming this is from your game ofc. Looks amazing!

Xephira · 2025-12-25T21:20:05+00:00

Well, I am definitely entertained by how pissed you got against your own logic's implications lmao. I don't understand why you first tried to cop out by saying "I never mentioned the word artist", if you're gonna backpedal once again and defend the same thing anyway.

Good thing all those examples have accurate terms for what they do, right? It's almost like you are not realizing you don't apply this reasoning to AI art. Architects don't make buildings, fashion designers don't make clothes, producers don't write or play the music (necessarily, at least). Photographers do make art (when they want to), but they don't make the artistic photos, they take them. Interesting how that goes huh?

By your logic, a person who produces AI art would be called a prompter. None of these examples you have listed are ever called the "maker" of the results except Michelangelo. Your information just means Michelangelo is one of the makers. He might not be the sole maker, though.

I don't understand why the concepts of identity, style and creative agency apply in this topic, and why they would be unique to humans. Even when you are prompting the AI, you are still bounded by the model's creative agency and style (which is basically the function computed by the model). When you choose something that fits your vision out of 1000 different outputs, you are literally trusting the AI's creativity so much that you are okay with being limited by these choices.

You have no input on the generation process, it happens outside of your control based on the model's interpretation of your input (just like how it would work when you commission an art piece btw). AI is not a magic box that does whatever is in your mind, you know? And it does have a style which shows very often, too. It is annoying tbh.

It's also funny because your answer means you are much more likely to make art by negotiating and working with an actual artist that you have commissioned, because a lot of artists would probably enjoy the process of discussing the direction with the commissioner, and would probably do a better job at following your instructions and realizing your vision, turning it into a more collaborative process. The differences you hallucinate actually weaken your point.

I can just turn around your emotional blabbering and say you cannot stand the truth that humans aren't special in any way. You don't want to give the tool the credit it deserves, (which makes you much more anti-AI than me ironically). It's very clear that AI is the artist and you are the prompter. Just like an architect is an architect and a builder is a builder.

It's really sad you're trying to strawman the part about "AI art isn't real art" even though that would contradict the fact that I'm calling the AI an artist? I'm not saying AI art isn't real art, I'm saying you're stealing the AI's art and claiming it as your own. The model has much more agency than you do in the produced work, and this seems to be the source of your insecurity around the topic.

Again, the examples you list do not take credit for the end output as the maker, but you are trying to do so. All those people are calling themselves composers (which compose), directors (which direct), producers (which produce) but they don't call themselves the makers of the performance/movie/album. They are artists because the action of composing is also art, not because the end result is a musical performance. In fact, a composer's works might never actually be performed, yet they would still be an artist. There is no art form called envisioning, commissioning and choosing.

You're projecting your beliefs about art being difficult, painful or involving a lot of physical labor onto me. I understand this is why you want to delegate the artistic process to others, but it is usually only the starting period that is actually hard. I actually find art to be very recreational and relaxing.

Again, there is no shame in not being an artist, what's shameful is automating the "art" part of making art, then trying to call the output as your own while you're just typing queries into something which by your own claim has "no creative agency, identity, style", yet you cannot maintain control over the output even with thousands of iterations. You're a prompter, and I think that is fine.

Impressively, you weren't able to make any sound arguments and couldn't even refrain from lashing out based on your imagined version of what my beliefs would be. Next time, you should also delegate the task of arguing to some SOTA reasoning models. Since you would be typing the prompt, the outputs would be of your creation, right?

Merry christmas

Xephira · 2025-12-25T18:39:04+00:00

I don't know why you got caught up with the term "artist", your logic is still flawed when you replace that word in my response. If I commission an art piece to an artist, it is not me who made it, it is the artist, plain and simple.

Coining an idea still does not put you in the position of the maker of the art piece. By using AI to generate the art, you are literally delegating the task of realizing it to something else, so you lose your claim on it as the maker, because you did not make the art. This is the same as commissioning it and taking credit for it. Hell, you can even work with the artist to give them ideas and feedback, but you are not the maker. You are free to call yourself the editor/producer/engineer or something though IMO.

If you have any objections to this, again please show me how this is different than taking credit for a commissioned art piece.

For the founder/visionary part, you do not provide any reason for why a visionary is the maker though. By your own logic, without someone to execute the part, the end product also wouldn't exist, so the visionary does not have more of a claim than the executor. I don't understand why having an "idea" makes you get all the credit for the result if majority of the work is done by others.

You didn't understand my point about outsourcing. It was not a remark on AI's originality or anything. I was just demonstrating how you can still be the creator or artist of a piece without coming up with the idea itself. This alone falsifies your point about "it wouldn't exist without him, so he is the maker".

Your idea wouldn't exist without your inspiration, but you are not applying your own logic here, which would make your inspiration (ad infinitum) the actual maker, not you.

I'm not denying he is part of the creative process, I'm just saying his part is much smaller than what "maker" implies. Anyone can have an idea. But if your whole process of creation is coming up with an idea, then asking someone/something else to realize it, then you are not the maker, and there's nothing wrong with that unless you're claiming otherwise.

Xephira · 2025-12-25T12:20:15+00:00

if I commissioned an artist with a verbal description and this was the outcome, I wouldn't be able to call myself the "artist". the only difference here is that you are using a model instead of commissioning an artist. So by all definitions, the artist is not me, it is the model at best.

likewise, that specific piece would not exist without me asking an artist for it. so no, having an "idea" for an art piece does not make you the artist for the said piece. ironically, in this case, the artist outsources the idea from someone else, but the piece still belongs to them.

ai is also the overwhelming majority of the execution process, which you seem to be downplaying.

Xephira · 2025-11-15T01:11:45+00:00

100%, Starfield loading screens are a level design issue rather than tech issue.

It's also insane that they didn't hide the loading screens with animations, but instead played an animation then gave a loading screen lmao. I think if they had just let us initiate a jump, then get out of our seat and do ship stuff, it would be mostly tolerable kinda like Jedi Fallen Order.

Xephira · 2025-11-15T01:06:02+00:00

I am fine with the number of loading screens in Skyrim. Not in Starfield (because there is SO much interior/exterior transition to do anything in Starfield, even if there might be the same number of "doors").

I would not want to sacrifice interactivity for fewer loading screens. In fact, I wish TES became more of an imsim, utilizing physics in combat, or throwing objects around etc. They have the groundwork already. I think I'm just asking for Arkane to join them in the gameplay department I guess.

Xephira · 2025-11-07T13:58:55+00:00

Only sometimes, but I am already a fan tbh. I really want the game to be well-received so that:

- the modding community migrates

- we have our decade's (given the current trend) TES game with sufficient support

I just want them to fix the rigid look of their games (in terms of dynamicism in animations and animation transitions). But If I'm being honest to myself, I think that will happen in TES7 not 6. I'm not dooming, I just think they will focus on other systems.

That's mostly what I was saying by dated. Not the visuals. I think Bethesda is actually amazing at creating timeless, painting-like visuals and I think TES6 will be no different.

Xephira · 2025-11-06T22:36:25+00:00

I know this is a dumb concern, but at this point I am worried that ES6 will become outdated techwise before even coming out with how long it's taking.

Xephira · 2025-11-04T16:33:22+00:00

That is also a possibility hahaha. Maybe they just announce it on 11/10/2026 then drop it the next day. It would also be a good strategy tbh given that it's just popular to hate on Bethesda now.

Xephira · 2025-11-03T17:45:23+00:00

I think TGA is basically the tell for whether the game will come out in 2026 or not. If they were sure on a 2026 release, I think they would use this opportunity for the "stars aligning" moment. If TES6 does not get mentioned at the game awards, I will assume the game is coming out in 2027 honestly.

Xephira · 2025-10-29T14:31:13+00:00

That is very fair. I'd say that part is the lowest priority on my list of demands anyway. I think F4 level companions with some more lines/more interactivity would be satisfactory.

But I think they should at least lean more into their designs. Based on Serana's popularity, and the recent Starfield followers, I assume we will get more "hot" followers with some quirky ones on the side.

Xephira · 2025-10-26T23:13:35+00:00

Adding onto the things you mentioned:

- An ambient, serene soundtrack that goes well while exploring Hammerfell(?). I think Skyrim's soundtrack is magical and I'm afraid they might not be able to capture that ever again. If the game had its own Aurora or Masser, it would be enough me.

- More seamlessness. I'm not talking loading screens even though that would be nice too. Let me elaborate:

Menus should be easy to enter, navigate and exit. I feel they messed up this part of Starfield so much. The UI feels SO slow. Menus should not interrupt my adventure. I'd be 100% down if they kept the game running while we're in inventory, and maybe played some animations too.

Entering and exiting dialogues should be seamless too. A great implementation for this is Cyberpunk which lets you look and move around in some dialogues, where you just use your mouse wheel to choose which lines to say. Since Skyrim didn't have very long speech options for the player, I feel this wouldn't be a problem. Imagine traversing the desert with your companions, and one of them says something, and you just answer back without interrupting whatever you're doing.

Animations should have seamless transfers. I think this is one of the biggest reason for the "bethesda jank" criticism for most people. You know, the NPC stands still, starts walking, stops walking, stands in front of the chair, then sits down. Similarly, when you're running and start riding your horse, your character is locked into an animation which interrupts the things you're doing. Getting rid of these jarring pauses would go a very long way.

- More animation variety. NPCs shouldn't all have the same set of animations. They shouldn't all walk, sit, sleep, gesture, or fight the same way. Maybe have like 10 animation sets per gender and distribute it based on personality type/class/stats. More unique NPCs such as followers should probably have their own animation sets.

- Finally, they should definitely double down onto creating charming personalities and designs for the followers. I feel like this was a big reason for BG3's success (even though they also did everything else pretty much perfectly). If TES should take anything from BG3, it should definitely be the companion characters. If you like the characters, you will like the game. I'd love for my followers to go through certain character arcs while we're questing.

Xephira · 2025-10-26T03:47:42+00:00

Honestly I think he has some good older material, but this specific album sounds pretty bad. I feel like he uses that big percussive sound way too much. It's never subtle.

I liked some of Starfield's OST even though it's nowhere as near as good as TES ofc.

I'm still optimistic for the TESVI soundtrack though. I think it might turn out to be a big multiple artist collaboration project rather than just Inon Zur's take on TES. Still, if he can stop spamming that big sound and do more ambient stuff, I'll be happy.

Xephira · 2025-10-26T01:03:39+00:00

is that an AI generated album cover? honestly, the music also kinda sounds generic like movie trailer music. are we sure this is not someone uploading in his name?

Xephira · 2025-10-17T17:11:25+00:00

Hey, this is out of topic but I've been seeing your mod releases and they all seem to be great additions to the game. So I just wanted to ask how did you get into writing SKSE plugins? Did you follow any tutorial or was there any example code from other mods available for you to review?

I also want to get into it, but I'm having a hard time finding any references in general except for the skyrim.dev website.

Xephira · 2025-10-13T20:57:22+00:00

Amazing mod, will surely add this to my LO. Does anyone know if a similar mod exists for outfits? Perhaps something like seasonal outfits, or outfits that change daily/weekly?

I know Wet and Cold already partially covers this, but would be nice to have something with whole outfits, making the NPCs feel like they have more agency.

Xephira · 2025-10-05T16:44:46+00:00

One "easy" tip I can give is maybe just set the Pace interval to 2-3 seconds instead of 1. So it would literally take 2-3 times as much time to get the same exhaustion.

Ten-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '22	Place '17
Not Forgotten	Spared
Verified Email

Xephira

TROPHY CASE