I do think they have a point: there’s not many other engines I can think of that are quite as ‘tangible’ as theirs. Every object has its physical place in the world and can be picked up, manipulated,… in a way that’s unlike other engines where the world just feels more static.

That honestly seems pretty low for friend.com

Although the fact they’re developing hardware on less than a million dollar budget is bananas, let alone the other whack ideas

Unpopular opinion because it’s so recent, but I think Starfield is/will be in this category

The problem with the Turing test and current AI is that we didn’t teach computers to think, we taught them to talk.

Which makes water lava, technically speaking