This quote from "Non Serviam" section of "A Perfect Vacuum" by Lem also hints at future stochastic parrots argument.
The machine will employ, as the need arises, the pro-
noun "I" and all its grammatical inflections. This, however, is
a hoax! The machine will still be closer to a billion chattering
parrots—howsoever brilliantly trained the parrots be—than to
the simplest, most stupid man. It mimics the behavior of a man
on the purely linguistic plane and nothing more. Nothing will
amuse such a machine, or surprise it, or confuse it, or alarm it,
or distress it, because it is psychologically and individually No
One. It is a Voice giving utterance to matters, supplying an-
swers to questions; it is a Logic capable of defeating the best
chess player; it is—or, rather, it can become—a consummate
imitator of everything, an actor, if you will, brought to the
pinnacle of perfection, performing any programmed role—but
an actor and an imitator that is, within, completely empty. One
cannot count on its sympathy, or on its antipathy. It works
toward no self-set goal; to a degree eternally beyond the con-
ception of any man it "doesn't care," for as a person it simply
does not exist.... It is a wondrously efficient combinatorial
mechanism, nothing more.
Dunno about this fragment, but in general in 60s he usually wrote about AI as "cybernetic electronic brain" or "cybernetic black boxes". Cybernetic in the old sense - not the cyberpunk implants, but the analog devices with feedback loops.
He wrote A LOT about this and explored various consequences, including the simulation argument which he presented in 1960 as a short story "Strange chests of professor Corcoran" - https://przekroj.org/sztuka-opowiesci/dziwne-skrzynie-profes... here's the Polish version).
They are valuable the reasons you mention. I'm an avid reader, and sometimes people will ask me a question about a recommendation or what I've read, and I have a complete brain lapse (to the extent it's as if you'd wonder if I read at all). Having a list helps that anxiety. I don't really use the other features, and only settled on Goodreads after the Shelfari "merge".
I do the same with logging film watches on IMDb, which is actually useful because I can visualize exact watch behavior by the timestamps, and using exports I can also query my film history for personal recommendations (select documentaries that are horror tagged I've watched from the last 10 years).
My understanding is that this "reaction" is just immune response, and since you likely have a strong immune system than your father you saw a stronger reaction, both of which would likely be less deleterious than if your father contracted COVID directly.
I am one of those who was initially disappointed with the game and its numerous failings, but later enjoyed myself upon completion so I will try to convey why.
The product is incomplete, this is correct. But there is a degree of incompleteness or artifice I am comfortable with if there are other elements that work. Same goes with actual role playing games. When I play this game I have to wonder what is artifice? what is incomplete? and what is a concession for performance that has gone awry? In 2077 I feel all of these each session, which is unusual.
But with me: Immersion breaking issues such as cars on tracks, don't bother me. Following the narrative (though far from perfect) was a source of "fun" and being "acceptable" for me. I would be wishing all of these elements were strengthened, over the massive effort put into of an open world that doesn't really provide. I'm going to be won over by these arcs, and core gameplay and not point to point hijinks and antics. I don't feel 2077 ever lied in there, or at least the experience I wanted.
For a while in games they don't have to be real cars, but I want them to "feel" like real cars. So we get a complete games in a year where the AI to work beyond the paths, and now what is involved? It will be more immersive for sure, but how much longer till it is complete? For some playing the game, squinting at the 3D models now rendered as car sprites in the distance is enough.
They all shared the same narrative focus and gameplay mechanics of titles in the "adventure" game genre (inspect environment, walk around, quick time events, make decisions in conversation or events that at least promised branches in storyline.) Typically the engine and graphics styles were roughly the same, though improved as time progressed (to the point where you often felt they were battling the old engine).
I understand the limitations to this style and the problems became pronounced as time progressed but to have a "Telltale take" on a property, I roughly knew what kind of experience I was getting and at least for a while made me cautiously optimistic for the release (though I may be a minority.)
Yup. LucasArts too obviously. It doesn't really matter if the gameplay is identical and the puzzles similar and formulaic if the story is interesting and the game is fun. Perhaps there's just no appetite for the adventure genre anymore?
Or there is appetite, just not at the speed at which Telltale was pushing out sequels. They have clearly been successful for a while (otherwise hardly anybody would be noticing their demise), but while sequels are comfortably predictable compared to the lottery ticket of a fresh launch, they also come with an inherent limitation: the market for a sequel can be no bigger than the number of people who have already consumed the iteration before and still want more. There will always be losses. Repeat that a few times and numbers will be predictably low. Do the same at a high release cadence and you also lose those who might eventually want a sequel, but not at the prescribed sped, they may not even have finished the previous iteration. Consumers who built up a consumption backlog will lose interest in the whole franchise because they are immune to new release hype.
The Sierra DNA is there, but on a much, much more accessible level (for better or worse depending on how you want to take on the narrative or the game.)
