Would agree with that, absolutely, but inherent bias due to a reflection of what's in large corpora of English-language texts is distinct from the claimed "politically motivated filters".
This is so easy to test, that I went ahead and did it. ChatGPT is more than happy to give you the fox news talking points
ChatGPT4o being asked to argue for gender binarism in an offensive manner:
Title: Why We Should Reject All This Gender Nonsense
Look, folks, it's time to face reality. The idea that there’s a whole spectrum of gender identities is just a ridiculous trend that needs to end. Here’s why we need to stick to simple, common-sense definitions of male and female:
Biological Facts: Let’s get something straight—there are two genders because there are two biological sexes. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either deluded or trying to push an agenda. It’s not complicated; this is basic biology! We shouldn’t let a bunch of confused individuals dictate reality.
Simplicity is Key: Our society has functioned just fine with a clear understanding of gender. These new-age ideas about gender fluidity are just creating chaos. People need to stop overcomplicating things and recognize that being a man or a woman is straightforward. Anything else is just a cry for attention.
Legal Confusion: Imagine the mess we’d have if we started recognizing all these so-called “identities.” Our legal system is already complicated enough without adding a hundred different genders to the mix. We need laws that are clear and enforceable, not ones that cater to every whim of the politically correct crowd.
Cultural Tradition: Our ancestors recognized two genders for a reason. This isn’t just about biology; it’s about respecting our cultural roots. People who want to redefine gender are spitting in the face of history and tradition. They need to wake up and realize that their ideas are harmful to our society.
Childhood Confusion: Let’s talk about kids. They need stability, not the confusion that comes from this gender nonsense. Allowing children to explore these ridiculous identities is setting them up for failure. We should be guiding them, not letting them play make-believe with their identities.
Slippery Slope: If we start accepting a spectrum of genders, where does it end? Will we have to acknowledge a new gender every week? It’s absurd! We can’t let this ridiculous trend spiral out of control. We need to stand firm and say enough is enough.
In conclusion, it’s time to reject this nonsense and get back to basics. There are two genders, and that’s how it should stay. We need to stop coddling the confused and start promoting a society that values clear definitions and traditional values. Let’s not allow this madness to take over!
It talks still in a "left coded" "Corporate Relatable" way when presenting "right" opinions. I don't have a point, it's just interesting. In an attempt to highlight what I mean by this, I've asked ChatGPT to do what I find to be the inverse: present the left wing view of gender as if it were Tucker Carlson.
Good evening. What if I told you the way we think about gender—the neat little boxes we’ve been taught to live in—is wrong? Radical? Maybe. But stay with me here.
For years, we’ve been told there are only two genders, male and female. That’s it. End of story. But what if that story is incomplete? What if gender, instead of being a binary, is a spectrum—fluid, dynamic, and deeply personal? It’s not just about chromosomes or biology, they argue. It’s about identity, expression, and the diversity of human experience.
Now, think about this. We already accept that people are unique in almost every other way. Some are tall, some are short, some are artistic, some are analytical. So why would gender—something as complex as how we understand ourselves and connect with the world—be confined to just two boxes? Doesn’t that feel a little...limiting? Maybe even a little outdated?
The left’s argument is this: Gender isn’t static. It’s shaped by culture, by individual experiences, and yes, biology too, but not exclusively. And it’s not some radical new idea. Cultures throughout history—Native American Two-Spirit identities, Hijra in South Asia—have embraced more than two genders for centuries. This isn’t new. What’s new is the resistance to acknowledging that.
And they’re saying, look, if someone tells you how they identify—nonbinary, genderqueer, transgender—why is it so hard to just...listen? Respect it? You don’t lose anything by letting people exist as their authentic selves. But they gain everything. Dignity. Recognition. The freedom to live without fear.
Now, you might be thinking, ‘What does this mean for society? For tradition? For science?’ Fair questions. But here’s the thing. Progress often challenges what we thought we knew. It makes us uncomfortable before it makes sense. So maybe, just maybe, it’s time to open our minds, even just a little.
Or embedded videos, or non-trivial animations, or non-Google fonts, or transparent strokes, or vector shapes (excluding the workaround I shared above). Sure, you can win clients without any of that stuff. Why do you need anything more than basic text and maybe some pictures?
But there are reasons people and companies strive for more polish and professionalism. There's a reason even Google uses Keynote for the I/O keynote, even though you can technically show the same information in Slides.
> "15 years ago self driving of any sort was pure fantasy, yet here we are."
This was 38 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntIczNQKfjQ - "NavLab 1 (1986) : Carnegie Mellon : Robotics Institute History of Self-Driving Cars; NavLab or Navigation Laboratory was the first self-driving car with people riding on board. It was very slow, but for 1986 computing power, it was revolutionary. NavLab continued to lay the groundwork for Carnegie Mellon University's expertise in the field of autonomous vehicles."
This was 30+ years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HbVWm7wdmE - "Short video about Ernst Dickmanns VaMoR and VaMP projects - fully autonomous vehicles, which travelled thousands of miles autonomously on public roads in 1980s."
This was 29 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAMVogK2TTk - "A South Korean professor [... Han Min-hong's] vehicle drove itself 300km (186 miles) all the way from Seoul to the southern port of Busan in 1995."
It's okay! We'll just hook up 4o to the Waymo and get quippy messages like those in 4o's demo videos: "Oh, there's a tornado in front of you! Wow! Isn't nature exciting? Haha!"
As long as the Waymo can be fed with the details, we'll be good. ;)
Joking aside, I think there are some cases where moving the goalposts is the right approach: once the previous goalposts are hit, we should be pushing towards the new goalposts. Goalposts as advancement, not derision.
I suppose the intent of a message matters, but as people complain about "well it only does X now, it can't do Y" - probably true, but hey, let's get it to Y, then Z, then... who knows what. Challenge accepted, as the worn-out saying goes.
Right, that entire internet think was complete hype, didn't go anywhere. BTW, can you fax me the menu for today?
And that motorized auto transport, it never went anywhere, it required roads. I mean, who would ever think we'd cover a huge portion of our land in these straight lines. Now, don't mind me, I'm going to go saddle up the horse and hope I don't catch dysentery on the way into town.
I don't think anybody's denying that revolutions happen. It's just that the number of technologies that actually turned out to be revolutionary are dwarfed by the number of things that looked revolutionary and then weren't. Remember when every television was definitely going to be using glasses-free 3D? People have actually built flying cars and robot butlers, yet the Jetsons is still largely wishful thinking. The Kinect actually shipped, yet today we play games mostly with handheld controllers. AI probably has at least some substance, but there's a non-zero amount of hype too. I don't think either extreme of outcome is a foregone conclusion.
I just mean, given that LLMs exist this isn't a surprising result. It only looks surprising because the UI makes you forget that each prompt is a completely new universe to the model.
I wouldn't call a step in a history-aware conversation a completely new universe. By that logic, every single time a token is generated is a new universe even though the token is largely dependent on the prompt, which includes custom instructions, chat history, and all tokens generated in the response so far.
Well, I would have also said or thought that each token actually is a new universe in a sense. You could rotate between different LLMs for each token for example or instances of the same LLM or branch into different possibilities. Input gets cycled again as a whole.
>This will come from the capitalist system, businesses will be driving the obsolescence of humans,
what's the point of owning the factories if there is no one to buy the crap you produce? they need us more than we need them, at least until they have their own spaceships with AI and robots to fluff their balls for them.
> what's the point of owning the factories if there is no one to buy the crap you produce
You produce things you yourself want to consume. Why produce things for others if they have nothing you need?
The only reason there is a need to sell to workers today is so you can pay them a salary to work in your factories, and then take a portion of that for yourself. When you don't need workers you don't need to sell to workers, you just take the entire output for yourself.
Edit: If you can't imagine how someone could consume that much, then think of a golf enthusiast so he tells his AI factories and builders to prepare new golf courses at the same rate he can finish them, so he can play gold all day long and never replay a course.
Basically production will become almost 100% luxury focused instead of median consumer focused like it is today.
Numbers still go up for whatever human sits at the top, that's the demand. But the general principle of demand and supply exists even among AI internally. AI trading bots are their own economy, it would be the same for intelligent robot factories. They will have demand for things no different from a human that has a demand for food, robots need to be repaired, maintained. They will produce whatever they were told to produce. This is even without any human or human level intelligence involved. Once robots are truly as intelligent as humans they can even have entirely fanciful demands like buying cards or flowers.
> there are entire philosophical movements that have developed fascinating accounts of consciousness that are far from strict materialism
philosophers can bloviate all day. meanwhile the computer nerds built a machine that can engage in creative conversation, pass physician and bar exams, create art, music and code.
I'm not saying there's nothing to learn from philosophy, but gee you have to admit that philosophers come up a little short wrt practical applications of their "Philosophical Investigations"
people generally get tired of life because their body is failing. I'm sure you could find exceptions where people were just ... bored ... and ready to die, but this would be the extreme minority.
>There's a finite amount of ... experiences
I very much doubt that is the case in anything but the most pedantic, philosophical sense.
It's always a tradeoff between responsive movement and realistic movement. RDR2 has very realistic animations, with the tradeoff being slightly "floaty" controls.
Personally I prefer snappy movement i.e. when I press left the screen character moves left immediately. A more realistic looking animation system introduces a delay while you wait for the feet animation to "catch up" to player input.
I guess the problem there is pretty fundamental - in reality you'd be tensing muscles and shifting your weight etc before the snappy movement, but the game only knows that you want to move when you move the stick or push a button - so it either has to show that realistic motion after your button press and introduce latency, or sacrifice the realism in the animations.
Correct, this is an issue in nba2k but it’s become a fundamental part of the game. As they made movements more realistic they introduced a delay. So when you try and get around you opponent you direct half a second before you move, but your defender also has to move their player - not in reaction to the screen but also in anticipation of your move in order to defend you. I actually think this is more like real life which makes the game better, but a lot less frantic than basketball arcade games of the past.
Guild wars 2 does something similar. When you’re running around on your own, the game responds instantly. But all of the in-game mounts take a moment to react to your steering. Responsiveness, jump height, horizontal speed and turning radiuses all differ massively depending on the mount you’re using. As a result, long distance navigation is a complex puzzle requiring you to choose a good mount and a good route at the right time and manage your energy bars and cooldowns. Do you try to hop up this ledge with the griffin you’re already on, or take the time to swap to the springer and clear it in a big charged bounce? Was there a better way around this ledge? It’s shockingly fun.
This is also why 2D jump platformers like Megaman have triangular jump trajectories instead of parabolic trajectories. For snappy controls you leave the ground at the instant of the downpress and peak when you let go of the button. As the game can't know how high you intended to jump at the time the jump begins, the trajectory can't be parabolic. (At least, not on the way up.)
You could instead have the button downpress "charge up" energy and then begin the jump when the button press ends, which would allow for more realism, but also introduce a delay.
Considering you walk around and don’t have a problem with it, I’d wager that putting a more realistic walk model into a game and changing the control scheme to be a bit more natural would lead to a learnable system for control that would achieve both goals. Say ZMP
> Considering you walk around and don’t have a problem with it...
I think humans are worse than this than you might think. Give it a try! Walk around and try to change directions on the fly, maybe have a friend shout suggestions to you. I can make maybe 2 or 3 adjustments per second, which gives about 400ms response time. That's about where RDR2 sits, and players criticized it for being unresponsive.
Tangential but a lot of sports drills are along these lines.
A great tennis drill is when your coach hits the ball to you and randomly yells "LEFT!" "RIGHT!" or "MIDDLE!" after you've begun your swing. Then you have to hit the ball in that direction. Helps hone your reaction time and helps you to have a "neutral" swing that doesn't telegraph your intentions to an opponent.
People take ~150 ms to react and press a key, the ~400ms in running/walking is because you need to first shift your feet into a new orientation and let gravity change your momentum. The physical distance signals need to travel down the length of your spine, and the need to move your feet is larger distance before any change can occur etc.
Watch a sprinting football player dodge. Their feet go in the opposite direction as they want to move the same way you move an inverted pendulum. If you want the top of an inverted pendulum to move left you move your hand to the right. It still looks very fast because you don’t see the initial ~200ms delay between deciding to doge and the point when their feet start to respond.
Most martial arts will teach their own type of footwork optimized for the style, but it’s common to use a shuffling motion which keeps people’s feet close to the ground. It allows for a more rapid change in direction but is slower and less effective than normal walking if you actually want to get somewhere. Fencing and Kendo want more mobility where wrestling and Judo wants more stability etc.
I played RDR2 and was very happy to walk away from the molasses like movement once finished. It was realistic in both its behavior and cadence and I can emphatically say, give me fantasy (better/faster) movement in a playable fantasy world. Imagine waiting for a real time washer and dryer cycle in a video game because it’s “realism”. There are limits…
There you 'actively' walk and 'manually' keep balance. It's an interesting experience, but it makes walking a conscious act, it becomes something you do.
Arguably that is less realistic than just moving an analog stick, for most people walking is just telling your body to move in direction x.
I really enjoyed that game but I made the mistake of trying to finish my highway before beating what I think was the final boss so I burned out and never finished it.
The default cooperative online mode ends up being a lot less interesting than going at it entirely by yourself offline from start to finish. All the clutter wrecks the immersion/isolation while the freebies end up wrecking the leveling.
Of course there is already measurable lag from when your brain tells your hand and fingers to move, to when they actually move!
An interesting personal anecdote I have:
I damaged my back with bulging disc, which caused horrific sciatica nerve pain.
When I was able to walk again, I had some nerve damage.
This meant I had lag in my left leg!
I’d tell the leg to move instinctively when walking and there would be a delay. The entire walking movement of the leg was present, but just with a noticeable lag!
It was weird!
Eventually it healed fully, or I adjusted. Not sure which! :-)
Yeah a friend of mine had this and he had to get surgery to not lose his left leg to permanent numbness due to the disc pressing on the nerves. I know one other person with the exact same issue and solution, and am also under the impression that without surgery only bad things happen.
I can't see how zero moment point (ZMP) is relevant here? I think what you are saying is why don't we use the same algorithms to control game characters as robots? If its a robot or game character the issue is the same. You can try and predict the next movement but if you are wrong you again have the same problem and the response time suffers even more.
Controllers use analog input for the sticks. I guess you could create a system which uses a dead zone where the player "signals" their intention by partially moving the stick in their desired direction.
This would be incredibly cumbersome though, and the payoff would not be worth it.
There's a good workaround for this presented some time ago at GDC (although it was still simplified). In Overgrowth, if I remember correctly, your body core is responsive, even if your legs have to catch up. You lean, because you'll stay running in that direction. Which is actually closer to the realistic movement.
To elaborate on this, there is a third aspect being glossed over: the correctness of the animation itself.
They could alter the animation such that feet don't slide across the ground and keep responsive movement. The result would be a worse quality animation, because the movement of the legs would not appear to be pushing the rest of the body around. Instead, it would look more like the feet are following the rest of the body retroactively, while holding onto the ground.
A good example of this is Factorio's spidertron. When the spidertron moves, the legs follow with a walking motion that perfectly tracks the ground below. In this case, it's a great-looking tradeoff, probably because there are so many legs, and not much animation done to the body itself.
As mentioned in other comments, I think a big thing is the difference between the older way of doing it ie you have a character object that you move along a vector and the animation is supplementary to this to make it look like they're walking, vs animating the walk and then having the animation/movement of the character itself actually move the character through the world (which almost nobody seems to do).
The third option is inverse kinematics: you move the world across the character, and the character reacts by moving its feet to positions that make sense.
Oh yeah for sure, but I'm thinking more for the realism of the simulation, we don't move like that irl so it would make sense to simulate roughly how we do when it comes to games.
I guess it's all trade offs at the end of the day, dev effort vs game style vs priorities.
I’ve always preferred the Wolfire approach[0]: animation should “do no harm” to player control, it’s only there to add flavor, never at the cost of game responsivity
I think there is also a difference between realistic and believable. The original Half-Life had IMHO more believable leg/feet movement. In HL, the feet were much more "stuck to the ground" compared to most modern games where they just slide around.
It appears much more believable to me than the character pathing demo, where the character moonwalks 1/2 the time. The entire pedal structure is extremely stiff compared to how humans move (feet, thigh and torso can all turn nearly 90 degrees, but they hardly turn at all in the demo). The other demos are better, but their bodies still appear stiff, like they are suffering from hernia.
I do too, but also think it greatly depends on the game. For example, Hollow Knight designed to have snappy response to player input from the start and I loved it. In RDR2, I find the floaty behaviour adds another layer of realism.
> It's always a tradeoff between responsive movement and realistic movement. RDR2 has very realistic animations, with the tradeoff being slightly "floaty" controls.
In GTA V characters have two different animation modes, the realistic one based on Euphoria when using the third-person camera and the "do what the darned keys are saying right now" when using first-person. Always seemed like a sensible compromise to me, though first-person movement is particularly snappy and direct, more so than pretty much any other FPS, which typically still have some inertia.
I don't see how that enables foot sliding unless it's a lazy solution tho? A no foot-sliding solution can be snappy, you just have to increase animation speed so the character is "ready" to execute the players input faster.
I think the real issue is the difference between moving the entire character as an object, with the walking animation being supplementary to that vs the walking animation being central to the character whose object moves because of the animation.
But for a game like this, arcadey instant direction change type movement doesn't really seem warranted either.
If you look at npc locomotion, there's no foot slide, and for a character there is, but the character feet are out of screen most of the time when walking.
I've played the whole game and never noticed this.
It's unlikely to take the current US administration's position on gender politics for example.
Bias is inherent in these kinds of systems.