Messages

Ben, I think your picture is nearly perfect, and would never think of touching it had you not invited me
(Also note that I've made my edits on my "travel laptop" so no tablet or even a mouse to work with, so this is mostly cutting and copy-pasting image parts... )

I did experiment with some basic composition changes and also neutralised the colours to allow for a fresh viewing of the picture.


Basically, these are school book principles applied;
1. I removed the boat skeleton from the center bottom, because this is where the viewer "enters" the picture so it shouldn't have obscuring, distracting shapes that block the viewer's path.
2. I added sky above the house, because I've learnt that you should crop a picture either so that its objects are properly cut, or left with plenty of space around, or they will appear crammed into the picture. The way your chimneys and crane end just under the edge of the image isn't ideal for that reason.
3. I've raised the lower part of the image, to remove some of the empty ground, and also to have the building situated lower.

In addition, I brightened the sky a bit, especially the part near the horizon, because this part of an outdoor scene is usually the brightest.
I don't particularly mind the dreamy greenish hue in your original version, but I used neutral, realistic colours in mine.

Edit:
Here's the before-version:

I guess everybody engaged in this issue has read Piketty's interview about Greece's situation by now:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/06/piketty-germany-greek-debt_n_7735866.html

It's pretty interesting, and it's also demonstrates why we can't necessarily apply micro-economical principles (what you borrow you have to pay back) on a state, since A) young Greeks today shouldn't have to pay for one past government's faults, and B) writing off debts for nations in need is something we've done in Europe throughout recent history, with France and Germany as notable examples.

One could add C); having Greece turning its back on Europe to find a loan giver in Putin would be much worse.

With the recent referendum proving that Syriza has the people's support in Greece it looks like the troika will have to give in and write off parts of the debt, if only to avoid civil war and a humanitarian disaster.

I'm pretty sure that ordinary Greeks' willingness to pay taxes and abide by economical (and other) laws will increase once they start trusting the state again - that part comes naturally in a nation.

I haven't had very much time so far this summer, so as you can see I've had to miss out on one of my favourite AGS activities entirely

Great art as always, really inspiring to browse through the pages and take part of respective artist's progress. I hope you can all push through the mid-activity fatigue that usually sets in by now and finalize these great pieces!

I'll probably drop in later to offer c&c on the finished backgrounds, should anyone want some.

And it's funny how people criticize the paving of Ben's street and the design of his stairs, when clearly the largest structural flaw here is that crane, which would stand no chance of supporting even itself in reality
It's pretty though.

Good initiative, and I'm definitely in favour of a theme.

I think having to take certain criteria into consideration when creating something is great practise, and it also gives the entire competition a nice sense of unity. I love the "ah, that's how they managed to incorporate the laser shark into the the plot" feeling.

Noone's rewarded for fighting with the IS.

People returning from Syria and Iran who can be suspected of extremist activities do get special attention and in some cases extra resources to re-adapt to society, but if there's any evidence of war crimes whatsoever, that person will be tried and convicted just like everybody else.

What politicians apparently have failed to communicate is how fighting with IS is still a crime. However, if you can't prove anything, it's considered better to try to make that person fit in society again. And it is often hard to prove those kinds of crimes.

Now, whether it's a good thing spending extra money on presumptive extremists is still a good question, but rewarding criminals we do not.

The above post possibly contains original research.
Its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations.

Just kidding, we're scientifically proven to be great!

If it's a rather basic arrangement I could record it for you. I have the software and hardware needed, so just tell me what you need. I can't do fancy Spanish or classical finger stuff.

Damn, another event I missed out on!

Yes. I've rewritten this post a couple of times because it ended up getting rather lengthy. I even considered putting it on my blog instead, but here's basically what I think, shorter version.

Like you I think that certain concepts and words like Moore's law, exponential growth and neural networks are buzzwords that people in the field toss around to make people intrigued and fascinated by what it is they're doing. Certain points in the blog post I linked to are downright silly - no, a person from the 17th century wouldn't die from shock or some kind of sensory overload if transported to our time; even though lots have changed, the most fundamental activities, concepts and mechanics of our world would be quite recognisable, and will have scaled in quite expected ways - houses are bigger, vehicles faster and people more numerous. And while internet is mind boggling it's not exactly imposing in a way that shuts down your brain.

Another fallacy is to believe that exponential growth is permanent - the only thing we know for certain about anything that has grown exponentially (like algae or whatever) is that it eventually reaches a plateau, if it doesn't just collapse under its own weight and disappears entirely.

However, I'm not very into computing or robotics or AI at all, really, so I've chosen to focus on something that I think has been overlooked by AI enthusiasts (where I believe they fail to think outside the box); the psychology of a super intelligent artificial entity.

The most dystopian scenarios described by AI visionaries depict super intelligent robots the way they're portrayed in movies like Terminator and The Matrix; entities driven by a sense of revenge, or greed for world dominance, or just a general aversion towards humans. Alternatively, they're regarded as potential benefactors, like kind gods who will deprive humans of any authority and destructive capacity, and let us live in peace and harmony, like sheep on an endless pasture. But all those qualities are the result of psychological processes and characteristics, not of pure reasoning.

The machines in The Matrix behave just like we're used to seeing organic species behave on Earth, but all organic species we know of are programmed by evolution to spread and populate and survive. A computer is not.

That begs the question - will pure intelligence also necessarily induce an agenda? A drive to do something? A need of something?
Ultimately, we humans do stuff because we have motives, which derive from biological needs. We have pleasure centers to satisfy, we have a strong instinct to survive, and that goes first on an individual level (protect ourselves) then on a community level (protect our family and tribe) and so on. We have a moral compass because it's evolutionary relevant for a tribe's survival if its members are morally competent individuals. We're mostly sympathetic and considerate to our peers, but can turn cruel and dominant if we sense that it's necessary for us to climb a few steps on the hierarchical ladder.

Will a computer develop a will to survive? Why? Is it logically sound to exist? Existing is only rational if it gives you pleasure, and pleasure comes from hormones. My latest MacBook Air didn't come with hormone glands last I checked. Just kidding, I haven't checked (I don't know how to open the damn thing). It's not necessarily reasonable to exist - the only effect is that you're vulnerable to events that will surely kill you no matter how high your IQ; meteors, the sun's collapse, or the terminal heat death, or the big crunch, or whatever.

There's no real reason to fear that the computer, no matter how intelligent, won't still be our slaves, just like we are slaves to our instinct to survive (most of us), because it makes no sense for it to go against it.

But most importantly, why do we assume that just piling lots of computing power together will somehow result in a conscious mind? Why would a computer all of a sudden have a functioning conception of self? Why not a myriad selves, why not a chaotic, schizophrenic mini-selves that will make the super-AI collapse from mental disorders. High intelligence doesn't ensure a strong psychological mind, or even a working one.

The only frightening scenario as far as I can see would be if our infinitely intelligent machine was built by someone who hated the world, and made sure the machine was equipped with an equally strong hatred towards mankind. But then we've reached a point where it's probably more relevant to worry about a mad scientist building their own nuclear bombs, which lies much close at hand.

I ended up paying a dollar a line in advance and another 50 cents a line once I started making any money. The actors ranged from amateurs to professionals, and I never had to argue about anything, prices or retakes or anything.

While researching for upcoming game projects, I've read up on AI and the future of robotics and super computers.

Read this:
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html

It's a very long article (in two parts) explaining and predicting how our world will pretty soon face the emergence of some super intelligent entity, which, thanks to the exponential pace at which it will be able to improve its own intelligence, may reach god like properties.

I would like you to read it - if you haven't already (or other similar writings - there are plenty) - and share your thoughts here.

I do have some reservations, but I'll hold my own questions and reflections until after you've got a chance to ingest the theories.

[subject]

All-in-all I'm enjoying this thread!  It's great entertainment.  It serves to prove a theory of mine (and I'm sure it's not just mine) that internet debates/arguments are completely pointless.

I don't think this is a particularly good position to take. People here are obviously rather invested in the subject at hand, so claiming you're just here to be amused strikes me as slightly condescending.

Also, I don't know why some people keep saying that internet debates are pointless. I don't think they're very different to real life debates, only that they're usually much better since people can provide links and sources, and also you can't backtrack or lie about what you've said earlier. If we should rate discussion contexts, I would say that discussing dr Wood during a late night pub crawl after some 5-6 beers would be much worse for... being the opposite to the things I just wrote.

A debate isn't pointless just because everybody doesn't suddenly end up agreeing - that would be beyond fruitful, that would be sheer magic. I for one find this debate rather rewarding because it's given me lots of new arguments against dr. Wood, formulated by people with special knowledge and insight that I didn't personally possess.

Now, let's reserve this thread for those who wish to debate the subject further. 

Hey Rodekill!
Hehe, that must be some sort of record

* I think her pose is very exaggerated, but I guess some people walk with their back arched like that.
* You don't typically have the palms of your hands facing forward like that. Turn them more inwards, or even a bit backwards.
* Her stride is far too short, giving her a strange truncated kind of strut.
* The legs skip from the "rear" position to the front too abruptly; you need more frames to capture the fluent movement here, or she will appear to constantly kick something in front of her.

Ok, I'm not even going to begin questioning this whole fake airplane theory, since it's just too outrageous for me to ingest and form stringent arguments against, so I'll focus on the energy weapons themselves...

Whoever has these weapons... why aren't they using them for, say, taking over the world? Or, for something. Has it run out of batteries?
Was this the only usage they had, destroying offices buildings and killings thousands of civilians, an act which had only negative consequences for everyone?

Ok.
I have always regarded the countable form of youth (a youth, several youths) as a slightly dated equivalent of the Swedish "yngling" which historically has referred to a young man.

Now I've seen "youths" used to mean just young people in general, similar to teenagers. A quick dictionary check tells me that both meanings exist.

So, turning to native speakers, how common is it to use "youths" in the sense of "youngsters" or "teenagers", and do you agree that a language puritan would only use it about young men? Would you even use the word at all, or is it too dated?

This topic has been moved to Adventure Related Talk & Chat.

http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=52079.0

Lovely lineart indeed - my first advice would be to keep the second or even first version and colour it, and save clouds and other atmospheric effects until later.
Also, I would avoid using pure blacks or even very much shading before the colouring stage, as it gives the picture the feeling of an old-timey photograph that has been coloured retro-actively.
Not to imply that Nihilyst's colouring isn't a good start!

Can anyone say for certain that a directed energy weapon wasn't used?!?
...
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
...
Once you accept the 9/11 evidence and realise it is irrefutable then you'll see that there is a bigger picture.
...
I'm not interested in debate here. As far as I'm concerned it's not a matter of opinion.

Monkey424, these statements unfortunately undermine - and nearly disqualify - your entire line of argument. It's slightly odd that you don't recognize them as rhetorical and logical fallacies, because they are almost universally known as such.

For instance, you have the onus probandi, which is when you make a claim, and then place the burden of proof on those who question it.

The truth quote above is a perfect example of a simple logical fallacy, where you imply that since A -> B, then B -> A, as in the claim "I shower, therefore I get wet". It may be tempting to reverse this by saying "I am wet, therefore I must have taken a shower", although this isn't a logical consequence (you could, for instance, have taken a bath or peed your pants or whatever).

You also have the proof by verbosity, which is when you, instead of discussing a topic point by point, overwhelm your opponents with copious
information and complex theories that are simply too time demanding for a person to bother dealing with. This is usually why conspiracy theorists are fans of websites of the format "1001 arguments against evolution" - they hope that the sheer quantity of arguments will deter anyone from questioning them.

Like Crimson Wizard said; take one argument at a time, and when people have responded to that (like the topic of how concrete deteriorates by heat) discuss the response instead of just linking to yet another video discussing yet another theory.

Yeah, I've been following Arjon's progress on Facebook and it looks rather neat. I hope he won't have any copyright issues, but since it's a freeware I doubt anybody will care.