deltaonezero

16 ms·

1.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
I mean they know in the sense that they can point to any random object and say "that object is sentient" or "that object is not sentient." We cannot articulate the definition, but the fact that when we look at something
2.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
No I'm saying there's a majority opinion. And something is up if you can't empathize with the majority opinion. I mean you can say everyone has their own opinion and they're all right from their perspective but this stat
3.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
Makes sense. You got me.
4.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
>Plus, even in the conversations shown, it was producing some bits of obvious nonsense, that seem to get rationalized away by the interviewer, who clearly wants to believe. I noticed the "nonsense". What made it work was that t
5.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
You seem to have a very specific view that pacing = faster. Pacing is not faster. GOT is not fast at all. In fact it takes several seasons for GOT to reach a payoff and everyone watched it in ANTICIPATION for that payoff. Literally they sat
6.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
eh it's aging. It'll get to the point where it's unwatchable one day. The whole grid zoom thing is the most prominent thing that aged in my opinion. It all happened on a CRT screen which is a definite sign of the times and th
7.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
I haven't read the book, but I met a lot of people who tell me that after they read the book, they now hate the movie because the book was so much better. Now after I read your comment, I realize they're just being snobbish.
8.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
Star wars is a masterpiece. You just need to look at the aftermath of what it did to the cultural landscape. By far more influential then blade runner. Star wars is definitely lower brow entertainment then blade runner but there's no d
9.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
No he's not. Most people don't find blade runner entertaining. HN is not in any way representative of the general audience. Actually statistically speaking he's part of the majority.
10.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
I disagree. While challenging and a definite technical marvel these issues are relatively deterministic based around the amount of resources a movie has to throw at effects, cinematography and art direction. I feel pacing is the hardest thi
11.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
I like blade runner, but I'm one of the people who finds the pacing horrible and I think most people in the general audience agree with me. Blade runner definitely is not blockbuster for this reason. I sometimes meet people like you an
12.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
>1. Pacing. It feels slow. This might blow your mind: The movie is only 2 hours. The sequel is about 45 minutes longer. I think this criticism is, frankly, invalid. Plenty of art/indie films get positive points for being contemplati
13.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
The story pacing was horrible. However thematic elements in the story were revolutionary sci-fi at the time. The whole AI/replicant/consciousness thematic elements really spawned from this movie. Terminator 2 is an example of a mo
14.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
>Obviously just clever lifeless patterns. This doesn't seem obvious to me. Those patterns were more or less identical to a conversation with another sentient human.
15.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
People already know what it means all over HN. They have basically already said that lamda is not sentient. So no need to even define it when we already know what it is (and lamda is not it).
16.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
Why is that worrisome? I don't think it's worrisome at all. What's the worst that could happen if we make such a mistake. I'd be far more worried about the scenario I described. Imagine something sentient that understand
17.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
Oh shit. Then maybe it already happened but arm chair experts everywhere denied it already. Basically that's what I'm seeing all over HN for the recent lamda fiasco. Tons of people declaring lamda isn't sentient when sentienc
18.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
I'm just reusing the other guys' terminology. In general I'm just talking about the pacing of blockbusters, and the guy said I'm rationalizing really bad movies with "frenetic" pacing. I think your definition o
19.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
One day someone is going to claim the AI is sentient and everyone will disagree with him. The difference this time will be that he is right and everyone else is wrong. One day.
20.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
Then why are you mocking it if it needs no help?
21.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
Maybe. The problem is the majority of the population has the exact same taste I'm talking about. Everyone loves summer blockbusters while Bladerunner is a niche. So am I rationalizing something or am I trying to explain something to a
22.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
I wrote this piece in response to your comment: https://www.inverse.com/entertainment/is-star-wars-science-f... Just kidding, but it's equivalent to what I would've wrote. >You can shift the entire thing t
23.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
Ridley Scott isn't a director that just does contemplative movies all the time. A lot of his stuff flat out just average (Prometheus for example) and he even does raw action blockbusters like gladiator that are very far away from being
24.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
That's very closed minded of you to say that. Because I never said this. Probably a better way to put it is this. If you like Blade Runner AND the MCU, or at least understand why from a mainstream perspective the MCU is a work of art t
25.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
No the reality is many big budget films are targeted towards AS MANY PEOPLE AS possible. It doesn't make business sense to target one demographic. Business people target qualities that hit as many demographics as possible. In short you
26.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
[flagged]
27.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
Opinions about movies aren't indisputable truths. There are things that are general truths though. Opinions held by such a high majority of people that such opinions are very close to the truth in the sense that often people talk about
28.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
>it's a fantasy story told in a sci Fi aesthetic. The aesthetic is what defines the genre. There's tons of garbage technology in other sci-fi works that are beyond what's even speculative. Star wars is not the only art wor
29.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
I addressed most of this in our thread. You might as well go back to that. Let me converse with this guy on his own terms. Anyway in response to your reply. It's the same thing. Maybe another renamed example will help you understand. A
30.
by deltaonezero 4y ago
Do you realize why I said that to the other person? There's a good reason why I was rude. Why don't you read the thread. There's no good reason for you to be rude here. Unless you're an ass hole. Not saying you are an as

More ›