I see your point, but as you say, there would still be the tradeoff of missing more recent stuff. That might only involve missing a couple of years’ worth of stuff now, but AI isn’t going away any time soon, so it would mean that there’d be an increasing amount of human made music not being archived; One of the things I like about Anna’s archive is that they seem to look at this problem as a long term, informational infrastructure kind of way, so I imagine they wouldn’t be keen on stopping the archive at 2023.

It seems they’ve opted for a different tradeoff instead: lower popularity songs are archived at a lower bitrate, and even the higher popularity stuff has some compression. Some archives go for quality, and thus prioritise high quality FLACs, so Anna’s archive are aiming to fulfill a different niche. I can respect that.

That’s super interesting, because with mine, it definitely made a huge difference. It honestly tasted pretty bad before it had aged at all, and it didn’t taste much better after 3 months. It was drinkable after a year, but still not great. After 2 years though, it was one of the nicest alcoholic beverages I’ve ever tasted.

I wonder what caused such significant differences between our experiences. Do you have a particular recipe you use? Not because I want to compare methods — I wouldn’t be able to find whatever guide I followed. Rather, it sounds like whatever strategy you used gets drinkable mead far quicker than whatever I did

You’re right — I think it’s more the frequent moving home that’s holding me back. I just want stability

I agree with the ethical standpoint of banning Generative AI on the grounds that it’s trained on stolen artist data, but I’m not sure how tenable “trained on stolen artist data” is as a technical definition of what is not acceptable.

For example, if a model were trained exclusively on licensed works and data, would this be permissible? Intuitively, I’d still consider that to be Generative AI (though this might be a moot point, because the one thing I agree with the tech giants on is that it’s impractical to train Generative AI systems on licensed data because of the gargantuan amounts of training data required)

Perhaps it’s foolish of me to even attempt to pin down definitions in this way, but given how tech oligarchs often use terms in slippery and misleading ways, I’ve found it useful to try pin terms down where possible

Yeah, that was my understanding of things too. What I’m curious about is how the Indie Game awards define it. Because if games that use ((Procedural Generation) AND NOT (Generative AI)) are permitted, then that would surely require a way of cleanly delineating between Generative AI and the rest of procedural generation that exists beyond generative AI

I’m not so much talking about machine learning being implemented in the final game, but rather used in the development process.

For example, if I were to attempt a naive implementation of procedurally generated terrains, I imagine I’d use noise functions to create variety (which I wouldn’t consider to be machine learning). However, I would expect that this would end up producing predictable results, so to avoid that, I could try chucking in a bunch of real world terrain data, and that starts getting into machine learning.

A different, less specific example I can imagine a workflow for is reinforcement learning. Like if the developer writes code that effectively says "give me terrain that is [a variety of different parameters], then when the system produces that for them, they go “hmm, not quite. Needs more [thing]”. This iterative process could, of course, be done without any machine learning, if the dev was tuning the parameters themselves at each stage, but it seems plausible to me that it could use machine learning (which would involve tuning model hyperparameters rather than parameters).

You make a good point about procedural generation at runtime, and I agree that this seems unlikely to be viable. However, I’d be surprised if it wasn’t used in the development process though in at least some cases. I’ll give a couple of hypothetical examples using real games, though I emphasise that I do not have grounds to believe that either of these games used machine learning during development, and that this is just a hypothetical pondering.

For instance, in Valheim, maps are procedurally generated. In the meadows biome, you can find raspberry bushes. Another feature of the meadows biome is that it occasionally has large clearings that are devoid of trees, and around the edges of these clearings, there is usually a higher rate of raspberry bushes. When I played, I wondered why this was the case — was it a deliberate design decision, or just an artifact of how the procedural generation works? Through machine learning, it could in theory, be both of these things — the devs could tune the hyperparameters a particular way, and then notice that the output results in raspberry bushes being more likely to occur in clusters on the edge of clearings, which they like. This kind of process would require any machine learning to be running at runtime

Another example game is Deep Rock Galactic. I really like the level generation it uses. The biomes are diverse and interesting, and despite having hundreds of hours in the game, there are very few instances that I can remember seeing the level generation being broken in some way — the vast majority of environments appear plausible and natural, which is impressive given the large number of game objects and terrain. The level generation code that runs each time a new map is generated has a heckton of different parameters and constraints that enable these varied and non-broken levels, and there’s certainly no machine learning being used at runtime here, but I can plausibly imagine machine learning being useful in the development process, for figuring out which parameters and constraints were the most important ones (especially because too many will cause excessive load times for players, so reducing that down would be useful).

Machine learning certainly wouldn’t be necessary in either of these examples, but it could be something that could make certain parts of development easier.

I don’t remember where I heard it, but a phrase I quite like is “AI is the death drive of capitalism”

Yeah, I’ve been seeing an increasing number of artists who are pro piracy, who basically say “steal our music, save your money, and if you want to support us, come to a gig and buy some merch”.

I’ve also seen more and more artists staying off Spotify entirely. One such artist is the wonderful folk artist Lucy & Hazel . This was the first time I actually bought music in years, and a big part of that was because I wanted to support their active choice to stay off Spotify.

An unexpected side effect of this is that because I’m aware these guys are situated less optimally for algorithmic discoverability, I find myself actively recommending them to people. It feels nice compared to the more passive mode of algorithmic music discovery

I’m not sure how they would go about doing that at scale without also getting some false positives and removing human music too

Can someone help me to understand the difference between Generative AI and procedural generation (which isn’t something that’s relevant for Expedition 33, but I’m talking about in general).

Like, I tend to use the term “machine learning” for the legit stuff that has existed for years in various forms, and “AI” for the hype propelled slop machines. Most of the time, the distinction between these two terms is pretty clean, but this area seems to be a bit blurry.

I might be wrong, because I’ve only worked with machine learning in a biochemistry context, but it seems likely that modern procedural generation in games is probably going to use some amount of machine learning? In which case, would a developer need to declare usage of that? That feels to me like it’s not what the spirit of the rule is calling for, but I’m not sure

I made mead ages ago and it was incredible. It didn’t last very long though. The demijohns the mead was ageing in came with me across 4 house moves in 2 years.

I’d love to do it again if I ever have the space, but also, I only made that first batch of mead because I tutored a beekeepers son

I often wonder whether Starmer has even one sincerely held political beliefs or value. I’d love to put him in a zone of Truth (D&D spell) and just ask him what he actually believes.

It’s weird, because it means that I sort of respect the Tories more. They believed many abhorrent things, such as that a cripple like me is at best, an inconvenient drain on the country’s resources, and at worst, someone who is making it all up to escape having to work — but at least they sincerely believe that.

Ooh, Barnsley! That’s actually super close to where I hail from (we had a Barnsley phone number and post code, despite not technically being in Barnsley). That’s so cool, it’s not the kind of place you typically see depicted in media

“Northern Englishest”

As a Yorkshire lass living in Manchester, you have me intrigued with this description. Hell, I’m more than intrigued — you’ve sold me on it

“Content not available in your region” because Imgur has blocked the UK due to the Online Safety Act. Lmao, this is hilarious in a grim way.

My perception is that it’s gotten worse in recent years, but there’s always been a weird, socially conservative streak, especially amongst the powerful.

I went to one of the super old, prestigious universities, and one of the most valuable things I learned there is that the British aristocracy is alive and well. We may not formally have a distinct noble class like there used to be, but in a way, we’re in a worse situation because we have so much of these entrenched systems that most people don’t know the half of. I think these kinds of people aren’t what you’re talking about when you mention the rise in the conservative mortality police, but it’s worth mentioning as one of the underlying factors.

The recent wave of stuff is more linked to right wing populism. Nigel Farage is a big figure in that, and the rise of the rhetoric feels like it’s been happening in parallel to Trump’s rise.

My belief about why this has been getting bad is that we had a Tory government for over a decade, starting in 2010, and their cuts had a terrible impact on the country as a whole. People who were living in precarity were increasingly fucked over, and as wealth continued to move upwards, the previously comfortable middle class were increasingly pushed into precarity. In terms of why the Tories were in power for so long, my opinion is that in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, they were able to convince people that a country’s finances were analogous to household finances, and thus deficits are bad, and that you can’t invest in infrastructure unless you’re running a surplus. If anything, this hindered the UK’s economy in recovering from the crisis.

Labour didn’t provide a satisfying alternative to austerity, largely because under Blair, Labour had become increasingly neoliberal and distanced from its roots. In 2010, they campaigned on a platform of “we agree with all of the Conservative’s assumptions about how an economy should work, and that austerity is necessary, but we will do less austerity than they will”. If you believe that austerity is necessary, why on earth would you vote for that? They were Tory lite.

And so large swathes of the UK public were effectively disenfranchised, because no-one they could vote for was actually offering something different to ease their socioeconomic suffering — except, of course, for UKIP (and the Greens, but they have always struggled to appeal to the mainstream). Especially under Farage, UKIP was effective at offering desperate people something different — something to blame for their struggles. Of course, blaming everything on immigration is bullshit and will, if anything, make people’s lives worse because of how much the economy depends on immigration, but it’s a problem of desperate people with insufficient class consciousness, who feel like they have no other choice.

A longstanding cultural facet that underlies a lot of this is the idea of the “deserving poor”— an idea that we can trace right back to the Victorian poorhouse. Even when the UK has been more progressive (such as during a period known as the post-war consensus, which “tolerated or encouraged nationalisation, strong trade unions, heavy regulation, high taxes, and an extensive welfare state”^[1]. I think this is somewhat analogous to the New Deal in American politics, though it happened later), there has still been a lot of moral ickiness tied into how we think about poverty. It’s the idea that people who are poor due to poor choices do not deserve support from the welfare state, and that it is necessary to prove that you deserve help. The fact that this is an idea deeply embedded in British culture has meant that the UK has long lagged behind much of Europe in terms of reducing poverty. ^[2]

In the modern day, this means that if you want to get out-of-work benefits, you are expected to do an absurd amount of performative bullshit to show that you are searching for work. If you miss an appointment at the job centre, even due to circumstances that are not your fault (such as being hit by a car and hospitalised en route to the job centre), you can lose your benefits. You can appeal these things, but even if that’s successful, it takes an obscene amount of work. If you can’t work due to disability, then you will have to do even more work to demonstrate that this is the case, in a situation that can function like a catch-22 — too disabled to have the capacity to prove that you’re too disabled to work, so forced to do all the bullshit job hunting (which you obviously can’t do). They expect you to apply for, and work in jobs that are completely unsuited to your skill set. Like, if you have a specialised degree or skillset and your field is one where there are jobs, but it takes time for you to find openings, then fuck you, apply to be a janitor instead. There’s often been talking of policies that would involve people on out-of-work benefits being forced to do “voluntary” work in order to keep their benefits. I don’t think that’s currently in place, but it has always been disconcertingly popular a concept. The phrase “benefit scrounger” is a phrase that’s big in the British zeitgeist. Even people who rely on benefits of some sort like to think of themselves as being distinct in some way from “the bad kind of people” who get benefits. Even as those people are pushed further into precarity, they still maintain the idea that they are distinct somehow. Benefit fraud is such a tiny percentage of total welfare spending, and yet policies aimed to root out benefit fraud (which often cost more than they ever recoup, and primarily harm people who are not committing fraud of any sort) receive bipartisan support. The honest, struggling people who get caught in the crossfire of such policies are viewed as acceptable casualties.

I mentioned above that I consider 2010 to be the start of a rise in the current trend of right wing populism, but another key “watershed” moment in my opinion was Margaret Thatcher in the 80s. Much like with Reagan, the political order that she was at the head of was ideological as much as it was economic or political. With her conservative government, she popularised the idea of “personal responsibility”, and severely exacerbated this notion of “the deserving poor”. Thatcher’s government is seen as the end of the post war consensus (which means a start to the withering of the welfare state)

You know how earlier, I mentioned that Labour shot themselves in the foot in 2010 by yielding to the Tories and letting them define the parameters of politics wrt austerity? Well that comes on the back of Tony Blair’s Labour starting that whole ball rolling with a heckton of privatisation and deregulation in the 2000s. Margaret Thatcher once said that Tony Blair’s New Labour was her greatest achievement, and I wouldn’t disagree there. It’s honestly funny how often I delve into the history of a particular fucked up thing in the UK and find that a lot of it can be traced back to Thatcher. For example, recently I was learning about the history of fibre internet in the UK, and I learned that this was yet another area in which Thatcher’s government fucked things up. It’s always fucking Reagan and Thatcher.

(Fun fact: when Thatcher died, the song “Ding dong the witch is dead” reached number 2 on the UK music charts)

It’s sad to see it happen. I come from a poor area up North. Many of my ancestors were coal miners who lived and died in the mines. The retail park I used to hang out at as a teenager used to be a colliery — the colliery where the miners first began striking in 1984. This area is now has a high proportion of votes going to Reform (i.e. Nigel Farage’s party, basically post-Brexit UKIP). I used to regard people who voted like that with disdain, because I subconsciously blamed them for their lack of class consciousness. Nowadays, I’m more able to feel compassion for them, and their desperation. I think modern society makes it very hard to build class consciousness and solidarity, and so right wing reactionary politics ends up feeling like the only option they have. After all, the miner’s strike failed. Entire communities fell into destitution and it felt like no-one with any power cared. In a sense, the current political situation feels inevitable.

This is why people like Mamdani, Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn give me hope. Sanders and Corbyn weren’t successful in their respective bids for power to enact their policies, but I remember how hopeful people felt during Corbyn’s rise. People who previously had completely disengaged from politics were suddenly getting involved, and it felt like there was hope. Of course, establishment politicians went and fucked it all up, but it still stands out to me as an example of how desperate people are for an alternative to the current status quo. People are sick of being told that the economy is going great, even as their lives and their communities are falling apart.

[1]: Source for quote: Wikipedia page on the Post-war consensus

[2]: further reading on how the myth of the deserving poor has caused the UK to lag behind Europe

If the goal is to hammer everything, then there are no bad swings

I’ve not played Factorio Space Age yet, but I’m looking forward to it whenever I next get a hankering for Factorio.

Your pitch has sold me on it. Yet another game to add to my wishlist

That sounds like a space version of Eco, with the roles stuff. In Eco, it’s impossible for one person to acquire all skills, so people on a server have to specialise.

I started out as a miner, to honour my late best friend who was a dwarf at heart and would definitely have been a miner if he’d been playing with us. Then I branched out into masonry to make use of the absurd amounts of stone I’d been mining. If I wanted something made of wood, I had to go flutter my eyelashes at my friend who had started out as a logger and branched into carpentry. I enjoyed having a domain that was my own, and a clear way to be useful to the server. Other players had some level of mining and masonry skill by the midgame, but for anything serious, they had to wait until I was online.

It sounds like Space Station 14 is far more hectic than this, but in an interesting way. I wonder if it will scratch the same itch that Eco did wrt being useful in a clear role