My family had one at one point growing up. As everyone else has said, there wasn’t much content. There was Avatar and maybe four or five others. The real killer though was the glasses sucked. You didn’t want to sit there for two hours with them on. I preferred 2D but comfortable.
I did play EU5 (and 4 ages ago) and didn’t notice the issue. I guess I just don’t pay attention to it.
I don’t know any that take a long time to unpack from developers. They do have to pre-compile shaders, but that’s different. Maybe I just don’t pay enough attention, or maybe it’s just because I don’t play many big budget games.
The thing about compression is you have to process it to decompress it. It may be benificial to people with limited bandwidth, or for peer-to-peer sharing, but it’s probably better for most users for someone like Valve to share the uncompressed version. Bandwidth isn’t the issue it used to be.
It also makes progressive updates harder. The best you can do is compress each update individually, not the whole package.
The way that could be done would be significantly worse than 15 slower. That’s the issue. Even with the fastest storage, moving things between RAM and storage creates massive bottlenecks.
There are ways to reduce this overhead by intelligently timing moving pieces between storage and RAM, but storage is slow. I don’t know how the models work, if it is possible to know what will be needed soon, so you can start moving it into RAM before it’s needed. If that can be done then it wouldn’t be impossibly bad, but if it can’t then we’re talking something like 100x slower maybe. Most of these are already pretty slow on consumer hardware, so that’d be effectively unusable. You’d be waiting hours for responses.
This is probably the easiest tool I’ve used to run them: https://lmstudio.ai/
There’s tons of models available here, some of them fairly large: https://huggingface.co/
No, I’m pretty sure there’s no way to run any larger than your RAM/VRAM, at least not automatically. You can use storage as RAM, but that’s probably not a good idea. It’s orders of magnitude slower. You’re better off running a smaller model.
Yeah, most likely, and it’ll only bind users and protect the businesses, as always.
It already is broadly accessible to the general public. They just don’t know about it or just accept using one of the cloud versions. It’s trivial to get up and running at this point.
The model should take into account income. For an open-source model it should be free. It’s using public data to produce a public product. For a for-profit model it should be paid. If they’re profiting off of public data then they should have to pay for the right to use it.
We can’t afford to make any of this. We don’t have the money for the compute required or to pay for the lawyers to make the law work for us. It should benefit the people, so it needs to change. It needs to be “expanded” (I wouldn’t call it that, rather “modified” but I’ll use your word) in that it currently only protects the wealthy and binds the poor. It should be the opposite.
OK, point to where I dismissed something. Do you think saying something is a semantic argument is dismissing it? I was making the semantic argument. I don’t know if you read the full comment, but it is totally about the semantics —about how staged and fake are not mutually exclusive. Do you think I was dismissing my own argument?
I feel like people read the word “semantics” and short-circuited. They think the word only means “pointless” or something. I used it to say that I was going to be making a semantic argument.
As with all things, nuance and context is required. I don’t think we should be taxing poor people that heavily (if at all), but does that mean I should be against taxing the ultra-wealthy more? Obviously not.
I support copyright to protect developers and not hinder users, hobbyists, or the average person. I don’t support it to only help massive companies who can manipulate the law to protect them from competition, but also not hinder them from stealing from the masses. They can afford to pay. If AI is actually as valuable as they say, the price of paying for the training data is trivial.
Copyright shouldn’t only be helpful to big businesses. It should be most helpful to the average person. We have the opposite here. I support modifying copyright law to bind big businesses and liberate individuals. I don’t need to be totally against it like you imply.
Technically even the Voyager probes are orbiting something. It isn’t a planet, and not even the sun anymore. It is orbiting Sagittarius A*, the black hole at the center of the Milky Way.
But yeah, probe is the more accurate term.
I don’t know what your point is. Clearly the argument I was making is not tautologically obvious. If it were then the comment above mine wouldn’t have existed. They said the headline was wrong. That the picture wasn’t fake, it was staged. I made the argument that staged could be argued to be fake. That isn’t tautological.
I don’t think intent matters here really. People making marvel movies aren’t intending to deceive that it’s real. That doesn’t make it not fake though.
I think if the photographer did intend to deceive then it’d clearly be fake, but saying he didn’t doesn’t give us insight into if it’s fake or not. It isn’t part of the definition.
For me, it depends on the context. Is it trying to portray something that actually happened?
That’s why, for me, I’d argue this is fake. Yes, the fire is real, but it’s trying to portray that he ignited from the lava. He didn’t. It was faked.
It’s a real photo representing something that isn’t real. Saying the headline that says it’s fake is wrong is taking a step too far into certainty. I wouldn’t say it’s wrong, even if the word choice could better represent the truth. That’s my point. I’m not arguing it is fake, but that calling it fake isn’t necessarily incorrect.
That’s literally what I said…
It’s an argument of semantics though. Neither are definitely correct. Most people would agree that adding effects in photoshop is “fake” but it still produces an image. Is it still “fake” when you use physical means to manipulate the image, like they used to do before CGI? If so, isn’t this fake? If not, what makes digitally manipulation fake? I can argue either direction, so the headline isn’t wrong —it just might not be the best choice of words.
I would say fake is accurate, as the intent is to look like the lava made it combust, which it didn’t. The flames are real, but the combustion from the lava is fake.
I get it, but maybe there’s a reason?
When I lost my faith in religion I was annoying because it had wasted so much of my time and effort, as well as causing stress and creating issues where none existed. I wanted other people to feel as free as I did, and it was obvious that it was more reasonable to switch after I had, and it was easy.
When I lost my faith in Microsoft I was annoying because it had wasted so much of my time and effort, as well as causing stress and creating issues where none existed. I wanted other people to feel as free as I did, and it was obvious that it was more reasonable to switch after I had, and it was easy.
Maybe just test your reasoning. Try Linux, or test the boundaries of your faith. See how it feels. Maybe other people have a point, as annoying as they may be.
Personally, I don’t push the religion thing anymore. I don’t feel like it does much good and is a waste of my time. Pushing Linux though? Yeah, that does do good, for the people switching and for the ecosystem. The more people move off of Windows and other closed platforms the more open things become, and the more choices consumers get.
That’s only true if they trust them. If the goal is to ensure they can keep track of dissidents then no.