I know that stupid rich CEOs and shareholders don’t understand this, but… “heart”. You make a game with heart, and it’s immediately apparent to the audience. You can try to break down what it is that gives it away, but that’s unnecessary.
If a work of art has heart, it will probably sell well. As long as people can clearly see what it is, and as long as it doesn’t do anything alienating.
How is that fucking legal?
Thanks. I don’t always have the mental energy to explain or counter every statement. Love that biting last sentence. <3
Who the fuckity shit said my argument was about dividing $400 million among four billion people?
Imagine being able to just waste $400 mil. While 40% of the people in the same, richest country on Earth are living paycheck to paycheck, trying not to become homeless.
People say that because they don’t know what it feels like. Basically, they’re projecting
Technically one can argue fairly that it doesn’t exist, but that argument would be about semantics. Doing something good for others at the expense of yourself either because it feels good to do, or because somewhere in your brain you think there will be good karma or a celestial reward, well… maybe those aren’t truly “altruism”, but can anybody tell the goddamned difference in the grand scheme of things?
Are you, like, 12? >:C
There are many problems with this argument; but it’s 11pm and I’m sleepy, so have the first one that came to mind.
Those countries don’t have a lot of wealth per capita to begin with, so it’s not a goddamned equal comparison.
I want to see the original too.
Edit: Nevermind, it’s posted below. It’s really cringey.
It’s getting old telling people this, but… the AI that we have right now? Isn’t even really AI. It’s certainly not anything like in the movies. It’s just pattern-recognition algorithms. It doesn’t know or understand anything and it has no context. It can’t tell the difference between a truth and a lie, and it doesn’t know what a finger is. It just paints amalgamations of things it’s already seen, or throws together things that seem common to it— with no filter nor sense of “that can’t be correct”.
I’m not saying there’s nothing to be afraid of concerning today’s “AI”, but it’s not comparable to movie/book AI.
Edit: The replies annoy me. It’s just the same thing all over again— everything I said seems to have went right over most peoples’ heads. If you don’t know what today’s “AI” is, then please stop assuming about what it is. Your imagination is way more interesting than what we actually have right now. This is why we should have never called what we have now “AI” in the first place— same reason we should never have called things “black holes”. You take a misnomer and your imagination goes wild, and none of it is factual.
I agree with you completely. I just wasn’t about to write an essay on potential contributing factors that can help one succeed, plus luck. I just wanted to say that these days, there are a lot of indie smash hits out there that succeed in part because people saw a whole lot of love in them, when a lot of the more cynical corporate creators would never have made such things in such ways. Hell, it’s not just indies. It’s why many Nintendo games are so beloved, even “forgotten” ones like Earthbound. ^^