The part I find most interesting on the subject of the use of Artificial Intelligence is that many of the respondents are so caught up in their own superciliousness that they've provided a technical answer to a series of philosophical questions.
I have found this unintended result to be quite illuminating.
Your queries for AI were ALL technical, NOT philosophical. It's not a question of philosophical or ethical nature, and it can not be implied either.
There was NO supercilious implying of superiority either.
The answers are based in (ironically) current programming logic based on current AI model's capability.
Simply put, AI would not know what a bug was unless it was told, which means, in STO's case, that AI would have to be reprogrammed each and every time STO was updated.
"You don't want to patrol!? You don't want to escort!? You don't want to defend the Federation's Starbases!? Then why are you flying my Starships!? If you were a Klingon you'd be killed on the spot, but lucky for you.....you WERE in Starfleet. Let's see how New Zealand Penal Colony suits you." Adm A. Necheyev.
The part I find most interesting on the subject of the use of Artificial Intelligence is that many of the respondents are so caught up in their own superciliousness that they've provided a technical answer to a series of philosophical questions.
I have found this unintended result to be quite illuminating.
Your queries for AI were ALL technical, NOT philosophical. It's not a question of philosophical or ethical nature, and it can not be implied either.
There was NO supercilious implying of superiority either.
The answers are based in (ironically) current programming logic based on current AI model's capability.
Simply put, AI would not know what a bug was unless it was told, which means, in STO's case, that AI would have to be reprogrammed each and every time STO was updated.
You will observe, if you check, that the series of questions form a progression that starts with the phrase, "Should we..." not, "Can we..."
To put it in simpler terms, the following two questions, though similar in their construction, are asking two very different things:
Can we implement a Death Penalty?
Versus
Should we implement a Death Penalty?
Furthermore, the answers I offered to my 6th question in that very same post speak to a philosophical corruption.
I will agree that my 4th and 5th questions, taken on their own, come off as purely technical in nature.
Meanwhile, I never said anything about "superiority," but I don't believe it was your intent to fabricate that intent on my part, either. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/supercilious
The part I find most interesting on the subject of the use of Artificial Intelligence is that many of the respondents are so caught up in their own superciliousness that they've provided a technical answer to a series of philosophical questions.
I have found this unintended result to be quite illuminating.
Your queries for AI were ALL technical, NOT philosophical. It's not a question of philosophical or ethical nature, and it can not be implied either.
There was NO supercilious implying of superiority either.
The answers are based in (ironically) current programming logic based on current AI model's capability.
Simply put, AI would not know what a bug was unless it was told, which means, in STO's case, that AI would have to be reprogrammed each and every time STO was updated.
You will observe, if you check, that the series of questions form a progression that starts with the phrase, "Should we..." not, "Can we..."
To put it in simpler terms, the following two questions, though similar in their construction, are asking two very different things:
Can we implement a Death Penalty?
Versus
Should we implement a Death Penalty?
Furthermore, the answers I offered to my 6th question in that very same post speak to a philosophical corruption.
I will agree that my 4th and 5th questions, taken on their own, come off as purely technical in nature.
Meanwhile, I never said anything about "superiority," but I don't believe it was your intent to fabricate that intent on my part, either. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/supercilious
If you are expecting purely philosophical answers to questions like that you will have to be much clearer about it in print to actually get that point across, especially in an online forum like this where regional dialect differences and the fact that for some English is not their native language mean that depending on the shadings of particular phases do not carry the same connotations for everyone. For instance, I am so used to "should we/can we" being used interchangeably (and other, far wilder juxtapositions, slang and other odd usages) that the difference you were trying to convey was totally lost on me, so it appeared to me that you were asking the questions in a more practical vein.
I run into the same problem, quite often when I post something people take it as something different from what I intended, though I usually don't assume the worst when it becomes apparent that not everyone is on the same page.
Further, the phrase "should we", when applied to a thing one can actually do, does imply questions as to whether the idea would be technically feasible. Yes, you could try to use "AI" to find bugs, but the reasons you shouldn't are technical, not philosophical - it simply wouldn't work.
If you want to debate the philosophy of AI in general, I recommend starting a thread in Ten Forward. In this forum, we discuss what can be done with the game, not what the philosophical implications are of doing them. In short, you're asking the wrong question, then being dismissive when we answer the one you asked rather than the one that dwelt purely in your own head.
The part I find most interesting on the subject of the use of Artificial Intelligence is that many of the respondents are so caught up in their own superciliousness that they've provided a technical answer to a series of philosophical questions.
I have found this unintended result to be quite illuminating.
Your queries for AI were ALL technical, NOT philosophical. It's not a question of philosophical or ethical nature, and it can not be implied either.
There was NO supercilious implying of superiority either.
The answers are based in (ironically) current programming logic based on current AI model's capability.
Simply put, AI would not know what a bug was unless it was told, which means, in STO's case, that AI would have to be reprogrammed each and every time STO was updated.
You will observe, if you check, that the series of questions form a progression that starts with the phrase, "Should we..." not, "Can we..."
To put it in simpler terms, the following two questions, though similar in their construction, are asking two very different things:
Can we implement a Death Penalty?
Versus
Should we implement a Death Penalty?
Furthermore, the answers I offered to my 6th question in that very same post speak to a philosophical corruption.
I will agree that my 4th and 5th questions, taken on their own, come off as purely technical in nature.
Meanwhile, I never said anything about "superiority," but I don't believe it was your intent to fabricate that intent on my part, either. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/supercilious
Last thing I'm saying on this.
'Can we' and 'Should we' do not dictate whether it's a technical or philosophical question. There is no direction in your language to inform us it's a philosophical question. You should have added exacting language like 'what would be the effect on Cryptic's staff if AI was used instead of them?' or 'how would players feel......?'.
You also said "many of the respondents are so caught up in their own superciliousness".
"having or showing arrogant superiority to and disdain of those one views as unworthy; expressive of contempt".
As history as already overwhelmingly demonstrated, AI is not reliable, nor practical at this point in time. It is not intelligent enough to understand what is, or is not a bug without programming input, doubling the workload of everyone involved to ensure not just the game is working correctly, but the AI too. AI has made numerous reported gaffs that have cost companies millions!
"You don't want to patrol!? You don't want to escort!? You don't want to defend the Federation's Starbases!? Then why are you flying my Starships!? If you were a Klingon you'd be killed on the spot, but lucky for you.....you WERE in Starfleet. Let's see how New Zealand Penal Colony suits you." Adm A. Necheyev.
Important things where said in that discussion. I'd like to have a version of, at least STO "All fans, All Hands!" available either monthly, or bi-monthly. It's the age of information after all.
Adm. Necheyev didn't own ANY Starfleet ships. Starfleet did. Also she didn't make one bolt, connect a single wire, gelpack or device, or otherwise helped on making them. I find it presumptuous she claimed it was HER ships. In fact saying as much would probably warranty a reprimand from any of her superiors in Federation and possibly not participating in said actions as other superior personnel do, would in our days(2409 onwards) result in herself facing the same fate as what she has threatened, in that same penal colony.
If they could make that thing less... rugged, I think it could look good in-game.
It is kind of interesting how modular it is, but it does not make a lot of sense for Trek engineering principles, which is typical for Kelvin universe stuff.
If they could make that thing less... rugged, I think it could look good in-game.
A lot less rugged, if the registry's anything to go by. The number says "post-TOS", but the design cues scream "early years of the Federation". Other hand, I think a 25th-century update could look really good.
There's only one ship from Beyond I can think of - the AR Ent-A introduced at the end of the film. Everything else from that movie we have in one form or another.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
There is always that Kelvinized Miranda that was partially seen in the background, though another whole Miranda variant instead of just adding a few parts to the class' kitbash kit just seems rather redundant since there are so many variants of the thing already. Anyway, there were a lot of ships in the background (and probably some in the foreground) that STO has not done anything with at all yet.
Besides the Salcombe, another possibly interesting looking ship seen way back behind Enterprise in one of the tubes was a ship with a Constitution saucer but in an Armstrong-like configuration except that it has what looks like two Konni-A nacelles (instead of Armstrong style ones) slung under the saucer on short, straight struts and a slightly thicker-than-Koni secondary hull complete with deflector in the middle instead of a third engine and is noticeably closer than the Enterprise secondary hull (probably because of its diameter) so there must not be much length to its neck. It also seems to lack a rollbar of any sort. All in all, it gives an almost Ptolemy-class vibe (if the Ptolemy was hauling a liner pod instead of a cargo one) even though it does not particularly look like one (which can be said of most KU ship in comparison to traditional ones).
Despite having a few somewhat interesting designs, the Kelvin stuff seems a bit niche in general though. I rarely see any of the KU ships in the TFOs or space social areas except for that dread with the saucer cutout around the bridge area, so I am curious why they are trying another one (unless Paramount is trying to drum up more interest in the KU and asked for it or whatever).
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,594Community Moderator
Despite having a few somewhat interesting designs, the Kelvin stuff seems a bit niche in general though. I rarely see any of the KU ships in the TFOs or space social areas except for that dread with the saucer cutout around the bridge area, so I am curious why they are trying another one (unless Paramount is trying to drum up more interest in the KU and asked for it or whatever).
Well... my theory is either the Ent-A or we're getting the first playable Squadron in the form of the Swarm Ship.
When they released the first Squadron pet they said they were interested in trying to make a playable squadron someday.
Honestly I think it would be better to go with the Ent-A, and maybe make her a Miracle Worker Cruiser. We already got the Lockbox Command Cruiser and the Legendary Intel Battlecruiser. Adding the Ent-A as well would give more customization options for the Kelvin Connie. Yea we know next to nothing about her, but... we knew next to nothing of the Wolf 359 Fleet and Cryptic has drawn from some obscure sources before.
There is always that Kelvinized Miranda that was partially seen in the background, though another whole Miranda variant instead of just adding a few parts to the class' kitbash kit just seems rather redundant since there are so many variants of the thing already. Anyway, there were a lot of ships in the background (and probably some in the foreground) that STO has not done anything with at all yet.
Besides the Salcombe, another possibly interesting looking ship seen way back behind Enterprise in one of the tubes was a ship with a Constitution saucer but in an Armstrong-like configuration except that it has what looks like two Konni-A nacelles (instead of Armstrong style ones) slung under the saucer on short, straight struts and a slightly thicker-than-Koni secondary hull complete with deflector in the middle instead of a third engine and is noticeably closer than the Enterprise secondary hull (probably because of its diameter) so there must not be much length to its neck. It also seems to lack a rollbar of any sort. All in all, it gives an almost Ptolemy-class vibe (if the Ptolemy was hauling a liner pod instead of a cargo one) even though it does not particularly look like one (which can be said of most KU ship in comparison to traditional ones).
Despite having a few somewhat interesting designs, the Kelvin stuff seems a bit niche in general though. I rarely see any of the KU ships in the TFOs or space social areas except for that dread with the saucer cutout around the bridge area, so I am curious why they are trying another one (unless Paramount is trying to drum up more interest in the KU and asked for it or whatever).
To be honest, there aren't that many ships anyway. So they're going to be obscured by the wider ship population, including those from newer shows (remember, Beyond is almost 8 years old already - Into Darkness is over a decade old now). And they're all Promo/LB/Lobi/Mudd ships too.
So it's not surprising that they're rarer than the Odyssey for example. Had that Vengeance Dread and the Jellyfish for example been added to the C-store, I'm sure we would see many more of them.
Glad they're making a new ground TFO but they need to create a handful more for most of the Reps because there's just a handful more space ones than ground but we need more variety in ground TFOs, we love our ground *bounces around* more ground! more ground!. I wonder what the new feature is?.
...we love our ground *bounces around* more ground! more ground!. I wonder what the new feature is?.
Their own published player metrics say otherwise.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
For some reason they spilt DECCA into the tabletop division (not either of the other two that are focusing on PC and Console games called Coffee Stain and Friends and the other called Middle-earth Enterprises & Friends and working on a new Tolkien Middle Earth Based MMO).
Also, under the spilt, it seems Asmodee is now shouldering the majority of the Embracer Group's remaining debt.
Given the debt load shift onto Asmodee, I doubt they'll be giving DECCA a lot of money to develop new content for STO beyond cash shop and lock box items, but I guess time will tell.
Part from the above article relevant to Cryptic Studios and its MMOs:
Asmodee consists of 23 fully owned studios and more than 300 IPs and consists of the tabletop games section of Embracer Group. It will continue focusing on tabletop properties while collaborating in transmedia partnerships for IPs like The Lord of the Rings and others in the Embracer wheelhouse. "As a global leader in board and trading card games, with a proven track-record of profitable growth, Asmodee is well-positioned to build on its strategy and continue to prosper as a standalone entity."
Its IPs include Ticket to Ride, 7 Wonders, Azul, Catan, Dobble, Exploding Kittens, and other board games based on The Lord of the Rings, Marvel, Game of Thrones, Netflix, Lego, and Star Wars.
"This transformation is an important step in unlocking shareholder value," chair of the Embracer Group board Kicki Wallje-Lund writes in a press release. "With this new structure, the three entities will be able to focus on executing their core strategies and leveraging their own strengths, providing more differentiated and distinct equity stories to both existing and new shareholders."
Embracer Group co-founder and CEO Lars Wingefors adds, "This is the start of a new chapter, a chapter that I intend to remain part of as an active, committed, and supportive shareholder of all three new entities, with an evergreen horizon. This move toward three independent companies reinforces Embracer's vision of backing entrepreneurs and creators with a long-term mindset, allowing them to continue to deliver unforgettable experiences for gamers and fans across the globe."
Middle-earth Enterprises & Friends will remain within the current publicly listed Embracer Group, which itself will eventually be renamed. Asmodee and Coffee Stain & Friends will hit the market as separate companies within 12 months, during the 2025 calendar year.
^^^
So yeah, French Info Games/ATARI...ooops, I mean Asmodee will be a separate company wit A LOT of debt hanging over it out of the gate in 12 moths or so. No coffee cups in the breakroom, here we come.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,594Community Moderator
Y'all know that's how you launch your shuttles in a Defiant or NX class.
Comments
I think this is what they may be talking about...
https://imgur.com/a/syLBAVt
CRM
Your queries for AI were ALL technical, NOT philosophical. It's not a question of philosophical or ethical nature, and it can not be implied either.
There was NO supercilious implying of superiority either.
The answers are based in (ironically) current programming logic based on current AI model's capability.
Simply put, AI would not know what a bug was unless it was told, which means, in STO's case, that AI would have to be reprogrammed each and every time STO was updated.
Non-sequitur, Ace.
You will observe, if you check, that the series of questions form a progression that starts with the phrase, "Should we..." not, "Can we..."
To put it in simpler terms, the following two questions, though similar in their construction, are asking two very different things:
Can we implement a Death Penalty?
Versus
Should we implement a Death Penalty?
Furthermore, the answers I offered to my 6th question in that very same post speak to a philosophical corruption.
I will agree that my 4th and 5th questions, taken on their own, come off as purely technical in nature.
Meanwhile, I never said anything about "superiority," but I don't believe it was your intent to fabricate that intent on my part, either.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/supercilious
If you are expecting purely philosophical answers to questions like that you will have to be much clearer about it in print to actually get that point across, especially in an online forum like this where regional dialect differences and the fact that for some English is not their native language mean that depending on the shadings of particular phases do not carry the same connotations for everyone. For instance, I am so used to "should we/can we" being used interchangeably (and other, far wilder juxtapositions, slang and other odd usages) that the difference you were trying to convey was totally lost on me, so it appeared to me that you were asking the questions in a more practical vein.
I run into the same problem, quite often when I post something people take it as something different from what I intended, though I usually don't assume the worst when it becomes apparent that not everyone is on the same page.
If you want to debate the philosophy of AI in general, I recommend starting a thread in Ten Forward. In this forum, we discuss what can be done with the game, not what the philosophical implications are of doing them. In short, you're asking the wrong question, then being dismissive when we answer the one you asked rather than the one that dwelt purely in your own head.
Last thing I'm saying on this.
'Can we' and 'Should we' do not dictate whether it's a technical or philosophical question. There is no direction in your language to inform us it's a philosophical question. You should have added exacting language like 'what would be the effect on Cryptic's staff if AI was used instead of them?' or 'how would players feel......?'.
You also said "many of the respondents are so caught up in their own superciliousness".
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/supercilious
"having or showing arrogant superiority to and disdain of those one views as unworthy; expressive of contempt".
As history as already overwhelmingly demonstrated, AI is not reliable, nor practical at this point in time. It is not intelligent enough to understand what is, or is not a bug without programming input, doubling the workload of everyone involved to ensure not just the game is working correctly, but the AI too. AI has made numerous reported gaffs that have cost companies millions!
Thank you all for your participation in this discussion. I have found your comments to be most informative.
Good Day to you!
If they could make that thing less... rugged, I think it could look good in-game.
It is kind of interesting how modular it is, but it does not make a lot of sense for Trek engineering principles, which is typical for Kelvin universe stuff.
almost has to be the franklin, unless they are going to release the Konnie-A. with an iconian episode coming makes sense Denise would be the guest VA
i could see that as a fleet project
Um, the USS Frankilin is already in game (since 2019) and also part of a Mudd bundle.
https://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/11273023-command-the-u.s.s.-franklin-from-star-trek-beyond!+
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Besides the Salcombe, another possibly interesting looking ship seen way back behind Enterprise in one of the tubes was a ship with a Constitution saucer but in an Armstrong-like configuration except that it has what looks like two Konni-A nacelles (instead of Armstrong style ones) slung under the saucer on short, straight struts and a slightly thicker-than-Koni secondary hull complete with deflector in the middle instead of a third engine and is noticeably closer than the Enterprise secondary hull (probably because of its diameter) so there must not be much length to its neck. It also seems to lack a rollbar of any sort. All in all, it gives an almost Ptolemy-class vibe (if the Ptolemy was hauling a liner pod instead of a cargo one) even though it does not particularly look like one (which can be said of most KU ship in comparison to traditional ones).
Despite having a few somewhat interesting designs, the Kelvin stuff seems a bit niche in general though. I rarely see any of the KU ships in the TFOs or space social areas except for that dread with the saucer cutout around the bridge area, so I am curious why they are trying another one (unless Paramount is trying to drum up more interest in the KU and asked for it or whatever).
Well... my theory is either the Ent-A or we're getting the first playable Squadron in the form of the Swarm Ship.
When they released the first Squadron pet they said they were interested in trying to make a playable squadron someday.
Honestly I think it would be better to go with the Ent-A, and maybe make her a Miracle Worker Cruiser. We already got the Lockbox Command Cruiser and the Legendary Intel Battlecruiser. Adding the Ent-A as well would give more customization options for the Kelvin Connie. Yea we know next to nothing about her, but... we knew next to nothing of the Wolf 359 Fleet and Cryptic has drawn from some obscure sources before.
To be honest, there aren't that many ships anyway. So they're going to be obscured by the wider ship population, including those from newer shows (remember, Beyond is almost 8 years old already - Into Darkness is over a decade old now). And they're all Promo/LB/Lobi/Mudd ships too.
So it's not surprising that they're rarer than the Odyssey for example. Had that Vengeance Dread and the Jellyfish for example been added to the C-store, I'm sure we would see many more of them.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Embracer Press Release:
https://embracer.com/releases/embracer-group-announces-its-intention-to-transform-into-three-standalone-publicly-listed-entities-at-nasdaq-stockholm/
For some reason they spilt DECCA into the tabletop division (not either of the other two that are focusing on PC and Console games called Coffee Stain and Friends and the other called Middle-earth Enterprises & Friends and working on a new Tolkien Middle Earth Based MMO).
Also, under the spilt, it seems Asmodee is now shouldering the majority of the Embracer Group's remaining debt.
Given the debt load shift onto Asmodee, I doubt they'll be giving DECCA a lot of money to develop new content for STO beyond cash shop and lock box items, but I guess time will tell.
Article with a little more info on the particulars:
https://www.gameinformer.com/news/2024/04/22/embracer-group-to-split-into-three-companies-including-one-called-middle-earth
Part from the above article relevant to Cryptic Studios and its MMOs: ^^^
So yeah, French Info Games/ATARI...ooops, I mean Asmodee will be a separate company wit A LOT of debt hanging over it out of the gate in 12 moths or so. No coffee cups in the breakroom, here we come.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."