Have you considered that the single most impressive breakthrough of LLMs as a technology is their ability to generalize beyond what they were explicitly trained on? Great analogy, pal, but LLMs aren't cars.
Why does everything have to be obsessed with growth? Especially with practically every (first world, at least) country having a birth rate well below replacement.
Not all businesses are obsessed with growth. Many mature businesses are managed for value rather than growth and focus on returning profits to shareholders through dividends or stock buybacks.
True realism is often interesting though, which provides more long term engagement than fleeting shallow fun. Look at some of the hard core 3rd party addons for flight sims, for instance, which are so realistic they actually ship licensed versions of the real aircraft training manuals and checklists - because every switch and procedure works.
> which provides more long term engagement than fleeting shallow fun.
That is your opinion. Also let's not kid ourselves, No Mans Sky is not a realistic game (you can visit other planets).
The full quote is more nuanced, it describes the idea that for game design you need to be able to explain why something is included in a design (design with intent) "realistic" without further explanation in this context can read like "because we always did it like this". Which is not sufficient.
"You'd have these conversations where you'd be sitting in a design review and somebody [would] say, 'That's not realistic.' And you're like, 'Okay, what does that have? Explain to me why that's interesting.' Because in the real world, I have to write up lists of stuff I have to go to the grocery store to buy. And I have never thought to myself that realism is fun. I go play games to have fun."
Half-Life 25th Anniversary Documentary (Valve, November 2023).
Surely there are games that make grocery shopping fun. But they probably don't focus on the realism of grocery shopping, rather they might focus on things that can make the experience fun. Otherwise you might as well just go grocery shopping instead of playing the game.
Simulations that take off often allow you to experience things that you might otherwise not be able to do (flying a airplane, driving a racecar). In that case the fun is in obtaining the unobtainable or without risks (crashing).
Fly out of SeaTac or Chicago O'Hare in most flight sims at sunrise, and you'll get a richly detailed airport, realistic traffic, realistic surrounding terrain, etc. with hopefully jaw-dropping views.
Pick a random airport at a random time with an obscure name or location in the US Midwest, and they all start to look the same (even with detailed, realistic geography): a mostly flat expanse with some hills, and either just the local city lights (if that) or a dull mid-day sun.
To be fair, those checklists are also largely there for so many pilots and those in training whom want to get the experience.
You haven’t seen either of the last two MSFS releases have you? They’re using high res satellite imagery of the entire globe. Even small towns are shockingly detailed.
Depends on what chess rating you're talking about. Online at fast time controls, where many many more games get played at than OTB classical, the top super GMs are rated in the 3400-3600 range.
MLB since 2023.
reply