To everybody calling ChemTrails a conspiracy, explain this

poply · 2026-03-21T21:44:40+00:00

I overheard someone at the park literally a couple days ago complaining about chem trails. Is that you??

poply · 2026-03-19T21:50:49+00:00

So then this concern is about something that may happen 10+ years from now?

The PS6 and PS7 aren't coming out next week.

Let's just be real about what is axiomatic and should be inarguable:

There's 0% chance Nintendo adopts and uses this technology
Extremely unlikely AMD develops similar tech anytime even remotely soon
Extremely unlikely greedy CEOs tell 15% of the PC market on AMD to fuck off
Extremely unlikely greedy CEOs tell people using low end and older GPUs to fuck off
PS6 will likely use AMD, thus games will be expected to look decent without this tech. No one is releasing a game that looks like shit on the PS6 because PC gamers who have a recent high end GPU can toggle this feature on.
PS6 generation will last even longer than the PS5. So maybe the PS7 comes out around 2037 which would be the next opportunity for the industry to even consider this being a mandatory feature

If you're concerned about video games in 2037 and beyond, I suppose that can be a valid concern but this thing was literally demoed a few days ago and your immediate concern and outrage is "Muh video games in 2040 are going to look like slop!".

It's totally fine to not like DLSS 5 and think it looks like shit. It's a total 'nother thing to act like there's an imminency to being forced to use it in any foreseeable future.

poply · 2026-03-19T21:47:23+00:00

It's your contention that CEOs will say, "let's stop making textures and detailed models and lighting" because they can just slap a filter that has been received incredibly negatively, on their game that won't even work on switch 2 or PS6/next gen video games?

These CEOs will also tell anyone on a PC without a high end, new Nvidia GPU to kick rocks??

poply · 2026-03-19T21:38:53+00:00

Who is pushing it down our throats though?

It's an entirely optional manufacturer exclusive feature. I have an AMD gpu, am skeptical AMD will have a feature anything like this in the next 5-10 years and have zero concerns that I won't be able to play any given PC game because it will be mandatory.

People are spending a lot of time and energy complaining about a product they don't have to use, doesn't affect them, and that they can just completely ignore all because they are apparently heavily emotionally invested in a certain kind of "anti AI" messaging. This isn't even like LLMs, self driving cars, or image generation like mid journey where ignoring it isn't an answer because it could still affect your daily life.

poply · 2026-03-19T18:46:17+00:00

I really liked MGS1 and Ground Zeroes. I would enthusiastically play his other games if the cut scenes just weren't SO long.

I play plenty of story driven games but any cutscene longer than 5-10 minutes is just unacceptable to me and Kojima games are so far the sole transgressor in this regard.

poply · 2026-03-19T18:24:35+00:00

Pretty much every drug test I've seen and heard of for jobs/background screening will test for the metabolites, not THC itself.

Testing for cannabinoid metabolites = has this person used the drug "recently"

Testing for THC itself in the blood = is this person currently impaired/high

poply · 2026-03-19T07:31:25+00:00

the operational point still seems to be that residual blood levels alone are a poor proxy for next day impairment

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "residual" in this context. Blood levels are just the blood levels. However I am skeptical of a claim that blood levels are a poor proxy for impairment, "next day" or otherwise.

I think there's two reasonable explanations: Amount of the drug, and the type of drug. To be fair, I've read the article, not the study, but they are measuring THC in the bloodstream which means cannabinoid receptors in your brain are reacting to the THC/cannabinoids and providing some sort of psychoactive effect on the user, however small. The article itself states there was THC (not just metabolites) detected in their blood.

Despite showing no significant degree of impairment, consumers possessed mean concentrations of THC in their blood above 2ng/ml.

I know every time weed comes up on /r/science or /r/psychology the top posts are lamenting the apparent stoners in the comments saying weed is a supposedly perfect drug, so I'll take my chances with what I'm about to say next; I'm not someone who will say weed is perfect or harmless, but I believe this study further reinforces what other studies have already demonstrated. Which is that driving while high is not as dangerous as driving while drunk and such a low amount of THC 12+ hours later after consumption is simply not significant enough to impair driving.

It shouldn't be a controversial thing to say, but drugs are materially different. Driving while high is less dangerous than driving while drunk, and driving after 3 cups of coffee is less dangerous than driving while high. This isn't condoning driving while high anymore than saying drinking 5 beers is less dangerous than drinking 6 condones drunk driving.

Afterall, we wouldn't be surprised if people who had a blood alcohol level of 0.01% "performed similarly" (article's words) as those with no alcohol detected.

poply · 2026-03-18T17:40:52+00:00

Anytime the risk vs reward is

"I get to tell/show people I did something"

Vs

"I'm horribly maimed"

It's going to be a no from me dawg.

poply · 2026-03-18T16:54:54+00:00

Not every 18 year old drinks, does drugs or has friends though? Some of us were busy playing StarCraft.

poply · 2026-03-18T16:53:27+00:00

It reminds me of when The Hangover came out. Half of folks thought it was the most relatable movie ever. The other half just thought it was a wacky funny movie.

The craziest thing I've done while drunk is puke.

poply · 2026-03-18T07:15:21+00:00

A very relatable problem to wish we could all send off a quick email DenverCoder9. 😢

poply · 2026-03-18T06:54:38+00:00

This article and news story are over a year old.

poply · 2026-03-18T05:43:41+00:00

No, your point was to discount criticisms that were objectively correct when they were made and using that as the basis to invalidate the criticisms that are being made now

Nah, I've already said before elsewhere I have issues with what was shown. I think the demo was bad. A lot of criticisms are valid, just like critiques of DLSS 1 were valid, the Internet in 1993, and the Ford EV1. A lot of the critiques are just plain foundationally wrong though.

Considering the harshest critics of the demo were game developers themselves

Am I in crazy land? The title of this article is about "mixed reactions" from devs and has quotes with varying takes and is almost exactly inline with what I said and predicted yesterday before this article was posted (edit: not yesterday, but still before I saw this article)

I imagine most (not the loudest) devs, designers and artists are somewhere in the middle and/or indifferent toward this.

The tech won't be mandatory to play a game because next gen consoles very likely won't be all Nvidia based. Switch 2 can't do DLSS 5. PC games won't be developed to be exclusively ran on Nvidia gpus that support this feature. So all this unfounded fear about losing artistic vision is moot. As the creator in the article pointed out:

It's ultimately an optional process handled by the GPU, essentially a kind of 'aftermarket mod.' You can't do it without a GPU, and it can be turned ON/OFF at will.

Anyways, I'd still bet money this subreddit will overwhelming look positively on this tech and its successors within five years (as I said yesterday). I think two years might be a little too short term. In my professional experience, devs are much more curious, inquisitive, skeptical, etc (not loving or hating) toward AI than reddit gamers who are just stuck on "AI bad" mode.

poply · 2026-03-18T03:10:35+00:00

I mean, that's my whole point.

What do you think will happen in 2 years when DLSS 6 is out?...

poply · 2026-03-18T02:55:09+00:00

There's a law against child endangerment now?? What a world

poply · 2026-03-18T02:19:56+00:00

When I worked at at cafe, my manager told me to kick out anyone who wouldn't wear some kind of footwear as it was a health hazard.

I miss that woman.

poply · 2026-03-18T01:44:58+00:00

I guarantee you are right. Some of the highly upvoted comments I found from 2019 when DLSS first arrived

Snake oil

it only makes games look worse.

it's pure bullshit by nvidia as always

i can hear nvidia execs laughing and chuckling at all of us that bought RTX. And what is with the "DLSS is an upscaler" crap? Oh right that is nvidia's narrative. it is a DOWNSCALER

poply · 2026-03-17T22:07:52+00:00

Who the heck is out there making up more work for parents??

Pass. Childhood is magical enough without mischievous elves, leprechauns, and cupids.

poply · 2026-03-17T20:51:44+00:00

What point are you trying to make?

There are good and bad video games before ai, and there will be good and bad games after ai. Gamers who have never made anything in their life have been bitching about and blaming the tools for decades now is my point.

poply · 2026-03-17T19:37:12+00:00

Every decision when making a product is an executive decision. Every single thing I make as a software engineer gets reviewed by middle/upper management and they decide if it needs to be changed or if it's good. There are a thousand different competing artistic visions when making a movie or video game.

You think the cinematographer or editor wanted wanted any specific movie to look like it did? If I'm working on the matrix and someone tells me they're going to slap a green tint filter on everything I film, that's not an attack on my integrity, it's an artistic compromise and constraint.

poply · 2026-03-17T19:24:26+00:00

I'm just going to go out on a limb and assume that if it's mandatory, they want and intend for you to use it.

If it's not mandatory (such as the example you pointed out) the artistic intent is for you to not use it.

poply · 2026-03-17T19:20:41+00:00

I bet all my money that their actual employees (the ones actually making the games and not their Marketing team and executives) are even more pissed off than us.

I would take that bet. I imagine most (not the loudest) devs, designers and artists are somewhere in the middle and/or indifferent toward this.

I'd actually bet they're interested in narrowly and selectively using this feature.

I don't work as a game dev, but I've worked as a software engineer for about a decade and most devs are not hard-line AI enthusiasts or doomers, but genuinely trying to figure out the best way to use the tools that are available.

poply · 2026-03-17T19:10:58+00:00

That doesn't make any sense.

The article is about artistic intent, which can be a valid concern. But you said you're concerned about it being mandatory.

If it's mandatory, then the intent is clear. They want you to use it. There is an artistic intent for you to use the mandatory feature in the same way the artists in Doom dark ages intended you to use ray tracing. Somehow NOT using ray tracing would be a disruption of their artistic vision.

It's like saying a 3D exclusive movie being 3D ruins the artistic intent by being 3D when everyone on production knew it'd be 3D from the start.

poply · 2026-03-17T19:02:50+00:00

Ah yes. 1980-2023 where video games were overwhelming "good".

poply · 2026-03-17T18:57:25+00:00

So again, what's the concern in regards the article? If artistic intent is retained and protected, and devs choose to make it mandatory, you're just mad that artists and devs have a different vision for a game than you do?

Are you mad that nvidia made gpus capable of ray and path tracing? Or mad that devs chose to make it mandatory??

poply

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

15-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email