The voice getting cut off was likely just a problem with their live presentation setup, not the ChatGPT app. It was flawless in the 2nd half of the presentation.
This is huge for indie game developers! They can voice every line of dialogue for every character themselves (or with just 1 professional voice actor).
Text-to-speech AI voice generators exist, but you don't have fine control over the emotion/expressiveness/intonation of the lines like you do with this approach.
I don't believe it modifies the accent. I noticed I could hear his asian accent coming through every character, so it seems to just modify the voice but not the intonation
As a laymen, isn't the spectrum just 'less autistic tendencies' and 'more autistic tendencies'? Is this a myth, or does the spectrum refer to something else? I was always under the impression that some people could be more autistic than others.
> "if you've met one person with autism, you've met one person with autism"
Isn't this true for just about any condition? It's not like people with ADHD or depression all behave exactly the same. I understand the urge to avoid categorizing people too broadly, but at the same time making the "taxonomy" of a condition hyperspecific is contradictory to having the label in the first place.
If saying "I have autism" has no descriptive power because this could mean a million different things, it seems like the term needs to be retired or narrowed to a specific set of behaviors/challenges.
Keep in mind that the current state of our knowledge of autism and other neurological conditions is still extremely new. Just 30 years ago, you would have been told that only young white boys exhibit autism.
There is debate within the autism community about ditching the catch-all term "autism", but I don't expect it to go anywhere. Broad labels like that are useful. I can tell a random person that I'm autistic and they generally understand that my "abnormal" behavior is innocuous. It's less useful to give a stranger a 30 minute lecture on my individual needs and challenges.
Read up on the controversy around asperger's and the "high/low functioning" dichotomy. These were standard measures for a long time and have only been dropped in the last ten years or so.
But more widely, there's a bunch of conditions of varying severity that might be caused by being in a car crash. That doesn't make "I was in a car crash" a bad answer to "what happened to your leg/eye/speech", it's just a fact.
Sure, but saying two people are the same magnitude is very different from saying they have the same level of touch sensitivity
Two complex numbers can have the same magnitude & be very far apart. Assuming we stick to the positive/positive quadrant it's not so bad. This metaphor (which, the spectrum itself is a metaphor, making this a metaphor of a metaphor) is to a 2d space tho, complex numbers are much more comparable based on magnitude as a result
> Two complex numbers can have the same magnitude & be very far apart.
Only if their magnitude is large; the maximum possible distance between two complex numbers of equal magnitude is double that magnitude.
And this limit is independent of the number of dimensions in the space you're working in; no two equal-magnitude vectors are ever farther apart than opposite vectors are.
If you stick to the first quadrant / octant / whatever n-dimensional division of space where all coordinates are positive... I don't think the number of dimensions makes any difference there either? Any two vectors define a plane (or a line, or, if they're both zero, a point), so two vectors in a 500-dimensional space can't be farther apart from each other than is possible for two vectors in a 2-dimensional space. Those 500-dimensional vectors are already embedded in a 2-dimensional space.
"very far" is of course relative: if we have tree vectors, two of length R and one of length 0.99*R, it's not outlandish to call the distance 2R between the two vectors of equal magnitude "very large" compared to the distance 0.01R between two vectors of dissimilar magnitude.
Your last comment is completely incorrect, for a point at (1,1,1,....) each extra dimension adds a constant 1 to the euclidean distance, so that in 500 dimensions a point at (1,1,1,....) is around 22.4 units away from the origin, while in two dimensions it is only 1.4 units away from the origin.
> for a point at (1,1,1,....) each extra dimension adds a constant 1 to the euclidean distance, so that in 500 dimensions a point at (1,1,1,....) is around 22.4 units away from the origin, while in two dimensions it is only 1.4 units away from the origin.
You're comparing vectors of different magnitudes. You could equally object that (200, 0) is much farther away from the origin than (2, 0) is. That's true, but so what? You're still in a two-dimensional space.
Are you under the impression that the "magnitude" of a vector and its "distance from the origin" are separate concepts? They aren't.
Consider simple two-dimensional space. A point at (1,0) is 1 unit away from the origin, as is a point at (0,1). But a point at (1,1) is approximately 1.4 away from the origin, i.e. sqrt(1^2 + 1^2). See Pythagorean theorem.
You keep referring to the magnitude of the vector itself rather than the magnitude of its components.
> Vectors with larger magnitudes have larger magnitudes than vectors with smaller magnitudes do?
Vectors with more dimensions have larger magnitudes than vectors with fewer components, for the same average magnitude of the components. The distance between the origin and (1,1) is less than the distance between the origin and (1,1,1) even though the components in both cases all have magnitude 1.
> Vectors with more dimensions have larger magnitudes than vectors with fewer components, for the same average magnitude of the components.
Is this related to something that's been said so far?
>> [sidethread] The next step is them doing a black knight and pretending they didn't put in the requirement by hand.
Obviously, I didn't. It was already there before I made my first comment. Look up:
>>> Two complex numbers can have the same magnitude & be very far apart.
The only thing we've ever been discussing is what can happen between vectors of the same magnitude. But if you want to discuss what can happen between vectors of different magnitudes... everything I said is still true! It's easy to construct low-dimensional vectors with high magnitudes, and in fact the construction that I already gave, of interpreting large vectors within a space defined partially by themselves, will do the job.
You rate someone on each factor using the same scale, e.g. a real number from 0 to 1, or a scale of 1 to 10. The scale is arbitrary but consistent.
Then someone whose "average" rating is 0.5 on a scale of 0 to 1 can be farther away from someone else whose "average" rating is 0.5 when there are more factors. On a linear scale two people both at 0.5 have distance zero. On a two dimensional scale, you could have one at (0, 1) and one at (1, 0) and then each of their averages is still 0.5 but their distance is ~1.4.
I think their point boils down to the fact that you can require that all vectors have the same magnitude, irrespective of the dimensionality of the space, which is of course true.
The next step is them doing a black knight and pretending they didn't put in the requirement by hand.
> Your last comment is completely incorrect, [random gibberish]
Here's what you were referring to:
>> If you stick to the first quadrant / octant / whatever n-dimensional division of space where all coordinates are positive... I don't think the number of dimensions makes any difference there either? Any two vectors define a plane (or a line, or, if they're both zero, a point), so two vectors in a 500-dimensional space can't be farther apart from each other than is possible for two vectors in a 2-dimensional space. Those 500-dimensional vectors are already embedded in a 2-dimensional space.
All of those statements are, obviously, true. What did you think was incorrect?
The question is whether each dimension is equally clinically significant, or equally impactful to quality of life. Talking about magnitude is definitely taking the analogy too far, as temping as it is.
That's exactly the issue, it is not as simple as "less" or "more" "autistic". I don't think I'll be able to explain it properly with my own words using english, sorry.
I'll just quote nih.gov:
> Autism is known as a “spectrum” disorder because there is wide variation in the type and severity of symptoms people experience.
and wikipedia:
> Autism is clinically regarded as a spectrum disorder, meaning that it can manifest very differently in each person. For example, some are nonspeaking, while others have proficient spoken language. Because of this, there is wide variation in the support needs of people across the autism spectrum.
I read the github readme and I still don't know what it does (other than it's a CSS framework). The only link that looks useful is the documentation link which leads to a 404 page.
I just wanna see an overview or some examples, I'm confused how this isn't the first thing shown on the github page.
It is great fun to realize that back in the day, when you ended up properly pissed in the pub, the pub owner could simply haul you on top of your horse, which would know the way home and deliver you there.
Now with cars we may even need radar on top of video to get similar results. And I doubt you are allowed to be drunk while your car is helping you home.
Agreed. Looking at the output HTML, it all tables and tables in tables. I find tables notoriously difficult to style in ways that are not straight tabular data. Grid or Flex would go a long way to fix some of the issues
I don't know how old you are, but as a younger millennial these look pretty awful to me (no disrespect). I'm sure nostalgia plays a part. I feel the same way about videos/sci-fi shows from the 2000s - none of the modern stuff quite feels the same.
But as another commenter said, I don't think it's the camera itself - it's the stylistic changes in lighting, camera angles, direction, etc. Each decade has a distinct 'feel' - films/shows in the 80s don't feel like the 90s, or the 2000s like the 2010s, etc.
It seems to be too much now to me. Overproduced maybe is the word? Too vibrant of coloration, too much lighting, too much movement. The best way I can put it is that new shows and movies feel "plastic" compared to older stuff.
I think the whole point is that an American who eats a lot of rice is not served by the answer “it’s not a problem, Americans don’t eat a lot of rice”.
I think the people are trying to figure out if arsenic levels in rice will be a problem for them specifically, not our population as a whole. When they say “is that a problem here?” they mean “is the rice I am buying here of concern if I eat a lot of it?”
There empirically is a standard American diet. Of course diversity also exists but it’s insignificant statistically. When this changes you’ll see different food at rest stops on interstate highways. It’ll happen but not very fast.
