Neither. I'm not even a patient gamer or broke (I bought the new Fire Emblem in September and still playing it), I just never got into GTA and didn't love Ocarina of Time on 3DS enough to replay a seemingly barely upgraded version. You'd have to pay me to do it, honestly.

Also, my backlog is very thick.

I play JRPGs a lot, but the best one to do this right is Etrian Odyssey, mostly because you can make combat (inputting + animations) really fast, and make even normal enemies interesting challenges. People don't complain about having to wait for your foe in chess, and that's because it doesn't take you 5 seconds to move a pawn, and the foe is usually a fair challenge. (Arguably, video games can be even better at this than chess, because the AI doesn't need time to think. Instead of smarts, it usually has the stat advantage)

SMT(including Persona) generally does this fine, and Fire Emblem can either look decent with animations off, or speedy enough even with them (most of the time is spent thinking than waiting, either way - the goal). Those are my top 3 series.

On the opposite end, mainline Pokemon might be the worst turn-based combat I ever played, even if the mechanics are solid. I don't want to wait 3 seconds just for "crit + effectiveness + fainted" to display, even more so if most of trainers and random fights aren't challenging.

I'm looking forward to how the industry changes when (or optimistically?, if) all those AI investments go down the drain. I'm assuming neither Valve nor Nintendo fell into the AI craze while almost everyone else did (I have no source other than vibes though, can't name any Sony AI stuff actually), but how much will they stay ahead?

Mind you, monopoly and a potential economic crisis isn't good. Everything will get worse. I just think it'll be entertaining if this is how Sweeney is acting already.

Well damn, nevermind. Gonna be honest, didn't look up the numbers.

At the very least, my point was that they are using USA AI instead of DeepSeek or other models, and that seems to hold true, at least for the recent influx of science publications. If AI is not profitable, like it seems so far, you want to be using the other guy's offer instead of expending. (And if you DO want to use it on your own in the future, you can distill their model after they did the training work too)

It's probably easier to think that when you're NOT in the country throwing away ludicrous amounts of money and resources on data centers. And in a country that'll probably punish you if you do something stupid like writing government papers with it, or I dunno, ask what you should be doing as the leader of the country.

To add to other comments here, new Nintendo games were supposed to be more expensive physically - say, $80 instead of digital $70 for the new FE - but it turns out, retailers don't want to be undercut by digital sales. So at least at launch and for some time, the physical price is slightly less than physical, so people want to buy them more. (I assume Nintendo asked for more money to provide physicals though, so the retailers get ~10 bucks less per sale)

Remember that retailers with an unsold copy lost money on it, while Nintendo loses nothing from not getting a digital sale (though they still prefer selling digital, so they get all of the money)

Only now did I realise the potential of targeted AI-generated ads. I'd never buy whatever they're selling ofc, but imagine seeing an ad with a character from some obscure 2000's game barely anyone else played on your feed.

I'm assuming that it'd have to be added on Youtube's side though, and the ads here are just someone making thousands of individual ads for the mainstream stuff.

"If you can't handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best."

Counterpoint - I imagine a lot of Americans (and to be fair, also Western Europeans and most of the other continents) don't give a shit about Putin invading Ukraine, but DO care about Trump fucking them, directly or not. Trump also manages to one-up himself every week.

I apologise for not stating the obvious, but when most people are talking about AI (as was I) they're referring to LLM's and generative content that boomed around 2022-2023.

Your citations 2-4 are focused on AI pre-2023, using data over decades. We've been using machine learning for ages, those were fine, as are any AI models focused on one task. There might even be math oriented models, but as I understand, Anthropic and OpenAI have been trying to force these proofs via LLMs.

Your citation 1 talks about productivity going up, but at a cursory glance, it doesn't seem to comment about OpenAI and others subsidizing a lot of the cost.

Ok? How will they dominate it? My point was that the math problems AI has been solving don't really have much of a use that typically gets you money or other resources. I believe I mentioned that medicinal uses, as well as statistical, programming etc. are welcome, but these ain't it.

A better comparison may be that this is rushing all resources to organize a mission to Mars. Very cool, very powerful, might get some tech developed in the process. But if a country the size of a continent enters an economic crisis, why tho?

Counterpoint: All that shit expensive as fuck. Why rush math proofs with AI rather than doing it 100x cheaper by paying a young mathematician over a few years? This isn't paying AI 100 million dollars to cure cancer, that might actually be worth it.

Even if some problems can be solved cost-efficiently, most of the proofs so far is showing off, ignoring costs.