What you describe is exactly why the dentist got fired once a VC bought out the region, and partly why the doctor burned out.

They are questioning.

My observation is that doctors are getting squeezed, other staff moreso. They’re getting pushed harder and harder for more and more productivity out of them.

A doctor in my family quit and retired early because (basically) their group got more corporate and burned him out. I heard of a dentist who quit over ethics issues once their group was acquired by private equity.

Not that they aren’t well off, but I’d be careful blaming working professionals like doctors, engineers and such so much.

deleted by creator

It must be a cash out? Leave someone else holding the bag.

“If I wish for three more wishes, you will grant them with no catches.”

Keep doing this, over and over again, trying different strategies. It’s a way to test and validate genie loopholes (as you will be unable to state that if it’s wrong).

Though if the genie was smart, being “wrong” would be qualified to your own internal knowledge, I suppose. E.g. you can’t knowingly lie.

On a technical level, that makes zero sense.

AI “agents” are basically just fancy prompts with a tool calling harness. They are infinitely replicable, at zero cost, with no intrinsic value; the cost comes from the generic CPU host, and the API calls to GPU servers, databases, or whatever else that are all centralized anyway.

Wanna hear a dirty secret?

“AI” cost is going to zero.

Model capabilities aren’t scaling, but inference efficiency is exploding, thanks to more resource-constrained labs and breakthroughs in papers. The endgame of the current bubble is mediocre but useful tools anyone can host themselves, dirt cheap. Maybe a bit more reliable and refined than what we have now, but about as “intelligent.”

And guess what?

Microsoft can’t profit off that. None of the Tech Bros can.

Point being, this exec is either delusional, or jawboning, so the world doesn’t realize that “AI” is a dumb utility/aid, and they can’t make any profit off it.

Planetside 2, for me.

It was never perfect, yet it’s basically dying of old age. I think that’s quite an achievement for an MMOFPS.

And I’m pretty sure there will never be another game like it, at its scale (and Foxhole doesn’t count IMO).

SAM and their relationship with Ryder was interesting.

…That’s about it, sadly.

Mechanically and visually, the game was awesome though.

I am ashamed to say that Pokopia (on my sibling’s Switch 2) is pretty great. It’s a sublime, cozy exploration game, basically absent of battling so far.

Regardless of whatever fraction most of the revenue comes from, they still draw absolutely massive amounts of players.

Or effectively F2P/MTX based ones, even if they have an upfront cost.

And it’s not even counting mobile.

I hear a lot about the resurgance of honest, pay-upfront games, but revenue sure isn’t supporting that.

All the games I see are PC/console. A few happen to be on mobile too, but that shouldn’t exclude them from the list.

TBH mobile revenue probably dwarfs these games, and must have a very different looking chart.

As if the cat couldn’t get up there already. It just demanded direct placement.

I mean, TES VI could be a rickroll mp4 and still sell millions of copies. There’s a megaton of nostalgia, and gamers are demonstrably… not the smartest shoppers, in aggregate.

Starfield and FO76 are not commercial failures, even if they aren’t hits either.

Point being, BGS is not short on time. I posit they have at least one “freebie” no matter what, or maybe a few more mediocre releases that will still sell big.

Actually this makes perfect sense.

Starfield is… trying to be part Mass Effect with big-budget cutscenes, but it has less charisma than Wrex has in his toe.

I’d argue it’s a bad “Bethesda wandering RPG,” without the quirky, charming side areas Oblivion or even Fallout 76 have.

But it’s an alright No Man’s Sky-like.

You want some crafting? Looting? A vast amount of chill exploration area? Reasonable “I’m in space” fidelity and tasks to tickle your brain? Starfield’s got it in droves. BGS games scratched this NMS kind of “looting exploration sandbox” itch for some, when there was no big-budget alternative back then, and I think Starfield leans into it more.

Hence my hypothesis is that gamers who love No Man’s Sky like Starfield, those who are looking more for “Mass Effect 2” loathe Starfield. And you and @[email protected] seem to be further datapoints supporting my observations.

The problem is Starfield’s expectation for most us internet dwellers was “Skyrim but Mass Effect.” And it’s kind of Bethesda’s fault for setting that expectation instead of leaning into Starfield’s real niche (and wasting cash on what BGS isn’t very good at).

Yep.

Have you tried KCDII? Stuff to hoard/sell is everywhere, albeit a bit more realistically.

But Bethesda aren’t really being punished for it because tons of people are still buying it and might have no idea games like KCDII or even a fixed-up CP2077 exist.

Nope.

Not sure where OP got it from, but it’s an edit of this image:

Dating back to 2013: https://tineye.com/search/cf7d2b88446844f3df676dddf009f7824c20cabc?tags=&sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1

I dub it “induced astroturfing”.

E.g. something artificially popular becoming organically viral through sheer critical mass. It is said, therefore it is believed (and reposted).

…And it seems reposters don’t stop to consider “Should I really amplify a blue-checkmark Polymarket tweet?”

This is proof of why OpenAI’s… opaqueness is so dangerous.

Chat LLMs tend to treat everything like an exam question or essay prompt, as a direct consequence of how the base models are finetuned. The hand is like a pivot point in a physic problem. But more importantly:

• The chat context is sort of their whole world. Again, due to training format. So they tend to stubbornly adhere to what has already been said, and have no real means of self correction.

• While we have no idea what OpenAI actually does, in basically every other open model, the vision component is trained separately from pure text input. Point being these models are alright at the very specific set of vision tasks they’re trained for, but the “coupling” of image input to the bulk of the LLM is very weak. The reasoning they can do over text does not carry over well.

Point I’m trying to make is the biggest lie of Altman is pitching ChatGPT as a general intelligence… It’s not. It’s a dumb, narrow tool, like a drill with specific changeable bits. But they package and market it like it’s “smart”, which is a big fat lie.

Go to any of the smaller AI vendors/models (like Minimax, with a new model today) and they do the opposite of this. They show specific uses in specific harnesses, and hyper optimize for that.