the DLC are pricey, but they’re also proper, old school expansions adding lots of content that actually enhances the game.

it’s perfectly playable without the DLC, and there’s a LOT of DLC-sized mods on the workshop!

kind of a fundamental problem with modern DLC: they generally don’t get cheaper over time (remember when that was an actual thing? not just sales, but actually lower prices for older games?).

if you keep up with the releases it’s super okay at about 20/25€ once a year, maybe twice, bur if you’re late to the party it’s a whole lot of cash all at once!

exactly why paradox introduced a subscription for Stellaris’ DLCs at 10€/month… honestly kinda worth it, if you know you’re just gonna play for a while and then move on…still wish stuff would just get cheaper at some point again…

well, rimworld does have a focus on (micro)management and strategy!

if your pawns are constantly down due to raiders, then you need better defenses! …or tame a herd of animals and release those at your enemies! (rhinos work very well for this!)

there are tons of little optimizations you can make to efficiently run a colony. for example, social fights: you can keep those from happening by keeping the problematic pawns in different areas! or removing one or both of their tongues! or sending one on basically permanent caravan missions! etc., etc.

this kind of deep strategizing, combined with the random bullshit the game throws at you, is mostly why people love rimworld!

and mods… definitely get mods! that’s where the game reeeaaally shines!

re: rimworld

it’s really important to read the messages and the little bits (like the logs when a social fight occurs) to really get immersed in the story!

might be worth watching some YouTubers playing to see what i mean!

hazzor usually does a good job of getting into the story, so does ambiguousAmphibian

but as the others said: if it’s really not for you, then it’s just not for you!

maybe read the dark profit saga then!

kinda terry prathett vibe with a more modern style, first one is called “Orconomics”

amazing trilogy, highly recommended!

thank you for posting!

I’ve been looking for something like this, and judging by the inclusions on this list I’ve already read, I’m guessing I’ll enjoy most of the others as well!

now I’ll be busy for the foreseeable future, which is nice :)

you are right!

i did actually forget about that when commenting, and thanks for the added info!

however, that’s not exactly what i was talking about:

assuming normal or better soil you need less work (i.e. time spent working the fields) per unit of nutrition when moving from rice->potato->corn because of yield.

so your pawns spend less time planting and harvesting, which results in higher overall colony productivity since they can do other stuff in-between, like cooking, cleaning, mining, etc.

you are correct in that you should choose which plant you use based on the soil first, and according to productivity second!

i just wasn’t really considering soil quality when writing the comment…

when starting a new game:

-set up a stockpile:

indoors, preferably shelves, but that’s a goal to work towards

-stockpile some food:

starting with a talented grower makes early game easier. rice is best in the beginning, when it’s beginning to stockpile switch to potatoes, when those stockpile to corn. each step requires less work by your pawns, leaving more time for other stuff.

-get a ranged weapon and some defenses

some bows if there’s nothing else. first raid is alwaysa single melee guy, that’s scripted, afaik. setup some sand bags or embrasures. walls/corridors to limit the range enemies can shoot at you.

-get batteries

super important! difficult to have a reliable food supply without those!

-get a freezer

also super important because of the above!

-set up a prison

last on the list, not that high of a priority…but still, get some more people!

and then do pretty much what you want…once early game is done, get some research done, plant some cotton, some herbal meds, set up a little medical area, etc.

this should get you to mid game fairly reliably!

Meaning what?

meaning the models training data is what lets you work around or improve on that bias. without the training data, that’s (borderline) impossible. so in order to tweak models and further development, you need to know what exactly went into the model, or you’ll spend a lot of wasted time guessing around.

I omitted requirements on freely sharing it as implied, but otherwise?

you disregarded half of what makes an AI model. the half that actually results in a working model. without the training data, you’d only have some code that does…something.

and that something is entirely dependent on the training data!

so it’s essential, not optional, for any kind of “open source” AI, because without it you’re working with a black box. which is by definition NOT open source.

all models carry bias (see recent gemini headlines for an extreme example), and what exactly those are can range from important to extremely important, depending on the use case!

it’s also important if you want to iterate on a model: if you use the same data set and train the model slightly differently, you could end up with entirely different models!

these are just 2 examples, there’s many more.

also, you are thinking of LLMs, which is just one kind of model. this legislation applies to all AI models, not just LLMs!

(and your definition of open source is…unique.)

pretty sure ATM9 recommended minimum RAM is 10GB…i have it at 12GB.

but i also run it at about 100fps and view distance set around 16 with shaders…

i looked it over and … holy mother of strawman.

that’s so NOT related to what I’ve been saying at all.

i never said anything about the advances in AI, or how it’s not really AI because it’s just a computer program, or anything of the sort.

my entire argument is that the definition you are using for intelligence, artificial or otherwise, is wrong.

my argument isn’t even related to algorithms, programs, or machines.

what these tools do is not intelligence: it’s mimicry.

that’s the correct word for what these systems are capable of. mimicry.

intelligence has properties that are simply not exhibited by these systems, THAT’S why it’s not AI.

call it what it is, not what it could become, might become, will become. because that’s what the wiki article you linked bases its arguments on: future development, instead of current achievement, which is an incredibly shitty argument.

the wiki talks about people using shifting goal posts in order to “dismiss the advances in AI development”, but that’s not what this is. i haven’t changed what intelligence means; you did! you moved the goal posts!

I’m not denying progress, I’m denying the claim that the goal has been reached!

that’s an entirely different argument!

all of the current systems, ML, LLM, DNN, etc., exhibit a massive advancement in computational statistics, and possibly, eventually, in AI.

calling what we have currently AI is wrong, by definition; it’s like saying a single neuron is a brain, or that a drop of water is an ocean!

just because two things share some characteristics, some traits, or because one is a subset of the other, doesn’t mean that they are the exact same thing! that’s ridiculous!

the definition of AI hasn’t changed, people like you have simply dismissed it because its meaning has been eroded by people trying to sell you their products. that’s not ME moving goal posts, it’s you.

you said a definition of 70 years ago is “old” and therefore irrelevant, but that’s a laughably weak argument for anything, but even weaker in a scientific context.

is the Pythagorean Theorem suddenly wrong because it’s ~2500 years old?

ridiculous.

just because the marketing idiots keep calling it AI, doesn’t mean it IS AI.

words have meaning; i hope we agree on that.

what’s around nowadays cannot be called AI, because it’s not intelligence by any definition.

imagine if you were looking to buy a wheel, and the salesperson sold you a square piece of wood and said:

“this is an artificial wheel! it works exactly like a real wheel! this is the future of wheels! if you spin it in the air it can go much faster!”

would you go:

“oh, wow, i guess i need to reconsider what a wheel is, because that’s what the salesperson said is the future!”

or would you go:

“that’s idiotic. this obviously isn’t a wheel and this guy’s a scammer.”

if you need to redefine what intelligence is in order to sell a fancy statistical model, then you haven’t invented intelligence, you’re just lying to people. that’s all it is.

the current mess of calling every fancy spreadsheet an “AI” is purely idiots in fancy suits buying shit they don’t understand from other fancy suits exploiting that ignorance.

there is no conspiracy here, because it doesn’t require a conspiracy; only idiocy.

p.s.: you’re not the only one here with university credentials…i don’t really want to bring those up, because it feels like devolving into a dick measuring contest. let’s just say I’ve done programming on industrial ML systems during my bachelor’s, and leave it at that.

perceptual learning, memory organization and critical reasoning

i mean…by that definition nothing currently in existence deserves to be called “AI”.

none of the current systems do anything remotely approaching “perceptual learning, memory organization, and critical reasoning”.

they all require pre-processed inputs and/or external inputs for training/learning (so the opposite of perceptual), none of them really do memory organization, and none are capable of critical reasoning.

so OPs original question remains:

why is it called “AI”, when it plainly is not?

(my bet is on the faceless suits deciding it makes them money to call everything “AI”, even though it’s a straight up lie)

if you’re searching for something general, like, i dunno “dishwasher cleaner” or something, it spits out usable results.

but as soon as a query becomes technical in nature, like troubleshooting IT problems, it’s a straight up nightmare.

the reason it’s so bad at searching for anything very specific is their attempt to “figure out what you really mean”:

and google does that by… ignoring what you typed and changing your search prompt behind the scenes without telling you and without any options to change it.

and putting it in quotes rarely improves searches anymore, only spits out more garbage.

point is: google is basically dead for any specific searches and only really works for searches that amount to “i want to buy thing. show me thing.”

here’s a thorough analysis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCuy1DaQzWI

TL;DW: they assume technology will magically “fix” the climate crisis and no big changes to society or the economy are necessary. thus perpetuating and worsening the climate crisis by pretty much telling people “it’s gonna be fiiiiine”…when it really won’t be “fine”.

edit: note, that most of their content is fine, just the climate “solutions” and stuff are…so optimistic as to be misleading. their physics and futurology stuff is fine. also way oversimplified in many cases, but fine.

Furthermore, worn items can’t be broken in DND. Ever. As in that sword wouldn’t have shattered.

…that’s not true tho?

a mundane sword, indeed all mundane objects, can be broken!

there’s a section with a table (DMG chapter 8; objects) with AC, HP, and so forth for objects of various sizes and materials.

it’s also on the starterpack DM screens!

the sword in question would have 3d6 HP and AC 19.

the relevant rules section, directly above said tables, isn’t very helpful in general, but it clearly says that all objects can, in principle, be destroyed:

[…] given enough time and the right tools, characters can destroy any destructible object. Use common sense when determining a character’s success at damaging an object.

DnD isn’t really made for complex equipment maintenance, so it’s perfectly reasonable to completely ignore these rules in normal play…which is why it’s one of those things everyone always forgets about…

what, afaik, actually can’t be broken are magic items. at least I’m pretty sure according to the rules they’re not meant to ever be broken…

edit: it’s artifacts that usually can’t be destroyed; magic items are just described as “at least as durable as a regular item of it’s kind”, but resistant to ALL damage…

as for the heat metal with adamantine skin interaction…dunno, I’d say it depends on whether the adamantine is right on the surface of the skin or not: magic in DnD is pretty well established to not work inside of a creatures body, with very few, explicitly stated, exceptions (because it would allow all sorts of dumb loopholes, like control water, a cantrip, being able to freeze blood inside a living being…that would obviously be broken, so magic stops at the skin, usually)

ah, thanks!

that’s good to know!

you lose cross-device sync, don’t you?

that alone is kind of a big deal…

pretty sure most men (myself included) find beards just easier to deal with than daily shaves…daily shaving makes my skin unhappy