Farid

PipeWire is a server and user space API to deal with multimedia pipelines. This includes:

• Making available sources of video (such as from a capture devices or application provided streams) and multiplexing this with clients.
• Accessing sources of video for consumption.
• Generating graphs for audio and video processing.

Nodes in the graph can be implemented as separate processes, communicating with sockets and exchanging multimedia content using fd passing.

I’m not redefining anything, I’m just pointing out that intelligence is not as narrow as most people assume, it’s a broad term that encompasses various gradations. It doesn’t need to be complex or human-like to qualify as intelligence.

A single if statement arguably isn’t intelligence, sure, but how many if statements is? Because at some point you can write a complex enough sequence of if statements that will exhibit intelligence. As I was saying in my other comments, where do we draw this line in the sand? If we use the definition from the link, which is:

The highest faculty of the mind, capacity for comprehending general truths.

Then 99% of animal species would not qualify as intelligent.

You may rightfully argue that term AI is too broad and that we could narrow it down to mean specifically “human-like” AI, but the truth is, that at this point, in computer science AI already refers to a wide range of systems, from basic decision-making algorithms to complex models like GPTs or neural networks.

My whole point is less about redefining intelligence and more about recognizing its spectrum, both in nature and in machines. But I don’t expect for everybody to agree, even the expert in the fields don’t.

Opponent players in games have been labeled AI for decades, so yeah, software engineers have been producing AI for a while. If a computer can play a game of chess against you, it has intelligence, a very narrowly scoped intelligence, which is artificial, but intelligence nonetheless.

I would put it differently. Sometimes words have two meanings, for example a layman’s understanding of it and a specialist’s understanding of the same word, which might mean something adjacent, but still different. For instance, the word “theory” in everyday language often means a guess or speculation, while in science, a “theory” is a well-substantiated explanation based on evidence.

Similarly, when a cognitive scientist talks about “intelligence”, they might be referring to something quite different from what a layperson understands by the term.

In a way, yes, if you frame it right. To simplify, you’re basically asking “is a calculator intelligent?”, right? While it’s an inanimate object, you could say that, in a way, it acquires knowledge from the buttons user presses and it applies knowledge to provide an output.

“But that’s not making decisions, it’s just circuits!”, you might say. To which I might reply “Who’s to say that you’re making decisions? For all we know, human brains might also just be very complicated circuits with no agency at all, just like the calculator!”.

IIRC, in his book The Singularity Is Near, Ray Kurzweil even assigns certain amount of intelligence to inanimate objects, such as rocks. A very low amount of course, and it might be a stretch, but still.

So yeah, it’s really hard to draw a line for intelligence, which is why there’s no firm definition and no consensus.

Of course there are various versions of NPCs, some stand and do nothing, others are more complex, they often “adapt” to certain conditions. For example, if an NPC is following the player it might “decide” to switch to running if the distance to the player reaches a certain threshold, decide how to navigate around other dynamic/moving NPCs, etc. In this example, the NPC “acquires” knowledge by polling the distance to the player and applies that “knowledge” by using its internal model to make a decision to walk or run.

The term “acquiring knowledge” is pretty much as subjective as “intelligence”. In the case of an ant, for example, it can’t really learn anything, at best it has a tiny short-term memory in which it keeps certain most recent decisions, but it surely gets things done, like building colonies.

For both cases, it’s just a line in the sand.

To say it’s not intelligence is incorrect. It’s still (an inferior kind of) intelligence, humans just put certain expectations into the word. An ant has intelligence. An NPC in a game has intelligence. They are just very basic kinds of intelligence, very simple decision making patterns.

You can’t patent code, and it’s automatically copyright protected. Nintendo just needs to prove they wrote the code originally, which should be easy.

I selected all and it’s still not enough of a reason!

Bow to Alec! Let Alec consume you!

How dare you ignore Alec’s video? 😤

Having an ergonomic keyboard is a step in the right direction, but it’s still a device for entering text.

In the very least, something more rounded and ergonomic than a row of buttons, something that lays out the buttons in such a way that they are more easily reachable without moving or contorting your hand. Fewer buttons for the pinky, more buttons for the thumb, which is now pretty much only used to hit spacebar. Maybe a big analog stick that sits under your palm, so you can tilt your entire hand to move (IDK how how useful that would be, but you wanted me to imagine something), leaving your fingers free to perform other actions.

I didn’t set a goal to pitch something better, I just pointed the fact that we use unoptimized hardware and hopefully somebody is working on something better.

You’re missing my point and just sticking to the usual false dichotomy of KBM vs. gamepads. I’m saying, we should come up with something better than a device designed for entering text, and I didn’t even criticize mice. Keyboard isn’t and can’t be “optimal” gaming device because that’s not its purpose, and it’s not what it was optimized for. Games just adapted to accommodate the devices already included with every PC, with varying degrees of success. That is just a fact, not an opinion. Keyboards weren’t made for playing games, we just adapted to using them, therefore they aren’t optimal.

Which means that we are yet to develop the optimal device for gaming to use in conjunction with the mouse, one that was designed specifically for that purpose. Just because you “don’t know what else would be better when combined with the mouse” (quote from your other comment) it doesn’t mean that nobody can design something better.

Yes, controller are purpose built for gaming, and they are definitely far superior in a lot of game genres. But mouse still is better for precision control, be it aiming a gun or selecting a unit. And keyboard is holding it back, because it’s just an unoptimized row of buttons.

Notice, that I didn’t say it’s impossible to use KB for gaming, I just said (or implied) that it’s not optimal. It’s not good, it’s just what we have and what we are used to, and there’s a lot of room for improvement. And I say this as a PC gamer of 30+ years. So much so that when I lay my hand on a keyboard it automatically assumes the WASD position, even if I intend to type.

And I’m glad that I brought this perspective to your attention, because we often don’t question what we are used to since childhood. Hopefully, these discussions will eventually bring us something better, that we have not yet thought of.

Can we all please admit that we merely tolerate keyboard as a gaming input device because of the precision that mouse provides? (Except maybe some special cases, like RTS) It’s a glorified typewriter, and we (PC gamers) use it only because at some point, it was all that we had and we just got used to it. There must be something better than a panel of buttons.

To be fair, PS2 emulation is still not that great, but I guess it’s due to sheer amount of games for that system. Last summer I decided to check the PS2 emulation after 10 year break and 2 out of 3 games I tested didn’t work properly. Granted, those are kinda niche games (Transformers (2004) and Free Running), but compatibility still needs work. Hardware requirements are decently low for the games that do work, though.

PS4 is actually easier to emulate than PS3, because former has regular x86 architecture, but latter has a very weird CELL/PowerPC architecture CPU.

I doubt it costs that much. You’re looking at it from buying PC components perspective. But they are mass producing identical boards with components that are 4+ years old by now, except the GPU. The cost of production is probably around the same as it was for non-Pro when it was released.

Vita can Run 99% of PS1 games “natively” and has a bunch of PS2 ports (some through PSP). Not PS3 though.