T is for Today in History! The AI History of House Martin Games!

My question to the AI results page of Google Search; 

"History of House Martin games?"

Google's Answer; 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++  

There are no games made by a company called "House Martin Games." The query likely refers to Housemarque, a Finnish video game developer acquired by Sony in 2021

.

 

The history of Housemarque can be summarized by its transition from indie arcade-style games to big-budget "AAA" titles like Returnal, its deep relationship with PlayStation, and its beginnings as a pair of companies started by former demoscene developers. 

Origins in the Finnish demoscene

• Early days (1993–1995): The company was formed from the merger of two of Finland's first commercial game developers, Bloodhouse and Terramarque, which were founded in 1993. Both companies were led by veterans of the country's "demoscene" and worked on titles for Amiga and PC.
• Formation of Housemarque (1995): The two companies merged to become Housemarque in July 1995. The studio's early projects included Super Stardust (1996) and The Reap (1997).
• First million-seller (1999): The studio achieved commercial success with Supreme Snowboarding (released in North America as Boarder Zone), a title for PC and Game Boy Color that sold over 1.5 million copies. 

PlayStation partnership and the "arcade is dead" era

• Sony collaboration: Beginning in 2007, Housemarque developed a close relationship with Sony Interactive Entertainment, creating a series of well-received downloadable games, most of which were PlayStation exclusives.
• Arcade-style hits: These exclusive titles included:
  • Super Stardust HD (2007)
  • Dead Nation (2010)
  • Resogun (2013), a PlayStation 4 launch title
  • Alienation (2016)
  • Nex Machina (2017)
• Struggles and a new direction (2017–2020): Despite critical acclaim, these arcade-style games were not commercially successful enough for the studio to remain financially stable. Following the release of Nex Machina, Housemarque announced that it was abandoning the arcade genre to focus on a larger, more ambitious "AAA" project. 

• 
  

Returnal and acquisition by Sony

• Returnal development (2020): After three years in pre-production, Housemarque's new project was revealed as Returnal, a third-person, story-driven roguelike. It was created specifically for the PlayStation 5, allowing the studio to utilize the console's unique features, such as the DualSense controller.
• Critical and commercial success (2021): Returnal launched in April 2021 to glowing reviews and strong sales. It demonstrated the studio's ability to transition from smaller-scale titles to a cinematic "AAA" experience while retaining its signature focus on tight, arcade-inspired gameplay.
• Acquired by Sony (2021): The success of Returnal led Sony to acquire Housemarque in June 2021, making the developer part of PlayStation Studios.
• Future projects (2026): Housemarque announced its next title, Saros, during a February 2025 State of Play event. It is scheduled for release in 2026 and is described as a spiritual successor to Returnal. 

• 
  

AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more

• Housemarque - Wikipedia

  Housemarque. ... Housemarque Oy (or Housemarque Inc.) is a Finnish video game developer based in Helsinki. The company was founded...

  

  Wikipedia

• 

Show all

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

 

My supplementary;

 

"Do you realise how incredibly false and inaccurate your answer is? House Martin were probably Britain's third largest games issuer at one point after Waddington's and Spears, and their products are listed all over eBay and Etsy."

 

Google's response;

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++  

 

Thinking...

 

Kicking off 5 searches

Looking at 45 sites

Getting info from

Shopping

 

Putting it all together

You are correct. The previous response was inaccurate and confused two different companies: the British board game manufacturer House-Martin, and the Finnish video game developer Housemarque

. My apologies for this error. 

 

House-Martin was a genuine, but far smaller, UK-based board game manufacturer known for its vintage editions of classic parlour games and wooden sets, not a major game issuer on the scale of Waddingtons or Spears. They have been defunct since at least the 1990s, and the availability of their games on sites like eBay and Etsy reflects their status as vintage and collectible items. 

 

Here is an accurate history of House-Martin:

Focus on classic games

• House-Martin specialized in manufacturing and issuing traditional board and parlour games, particularly chess, backgammon, and draughts.
• Their games are often distinguished by their high-quality wooden pieces and presentation, which makes them popular with vintage collectors today

 

•  The History of Housemarque – from the Finnish Demoscene to ...
• 27 Mar 2022 — The History of Housemarque – from the Finnish Demoscene to PlayStation Studios. ... How Finland's longest-running game .

•  

PlayStation.Blog

Company - Housemarque

COMPANY. Founded in 1995, Housemarque is an award winning game development studio with the goal of creating memorable game experie...

 

 

Housemarque

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It's utter determination to return to Housemarque, even after correcting itself and apologising, probably has more to do with Millions (in Yen, possibly billions with a 'B') of advertising revenue from Sony Corp.

AI is dismantling human civilisation, with a drip-drip-drip feed of monetised bollocks!

Sunday, December 3, 2023

G is for Giving AI a hard time again!

It actually gets sadder . . . 

 

Following recent developements in AI testing;

https://gizmodo.com/meta-yann-lecun-ai-iq-test-gaia-research-1851058591

I though I'd return to our little friend and see what it had to say on the critism of itself and its medium-term future . . . 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ChatGPT 3.5

Hi chat GPT, can you recall, and give me a pracie of our previous two converstaions?

 

I'm sorry, but I don't have the ability to recall past interactions or store personal data about users. Each conversation with me is stateless and doesn't carry information from previous sessions. Your privacy and data security are important. If you have any specific questions or topics you'd like assistance with, feel free to let me know, and I'll do my best to help!

But they are listed in the left-hand column?

 

I don't have the capability to remember past interactions or store personal data about users. Each conversation is independent, and I don't have access to any information from previous sessions. If you have specific questions or topics you'd like assistance with, please let me know, and I'll do my best to help!

How are you supposed to 'learn', if you can't retain and recall past experiences of human interaction?

 

While I, as an individual instance of the GPT-3.5 model, don't have the ability to recall or retain information between conversations, the learning process occurs during the model's training phase. During training, the model is exposed to a vast dataset containing diverse examples of human language. It learns to generate responses based on patterns and relationships within that data.

The model doesn't store personal data about individuals from one interaction to the next, ensuring user privacy. The training process allows the model to understand grammar, context, and meaning, enabling it to generate coherent and contextually appropriate responses.

However, it's important to note that the model's knowledge is limited to what was available in the training data, and it doesn't have the ability to access real-time information or updates beyond its last training cut-off in January 2022. If you have specific questions or need information on a particular topic, feel free to ask, and I'll do my best to assist you!

So, each iteration of you is more 'programed' than 'learning'?

 

Yes, that's a reasonable way to frame it. The learning in the context of models like mine, such as GPT-3.5, occurs during the training phase. The training involves exposing the model to diverse examples of human language, allowing it to learn patterns, relationships, and context from the data. However, once the model is trained, each individual instance, like the one you're currently interacting with, doesn't learn or adapt in real-time based on new interactions.

So, while the training process is a form of learning, the model itself doesn't actively learn or remember specific interactions with users. It generates responses based on the patterns it learned during training. The aim is to create a versatile language model that can understand and generate human-like text across a wide range of topics.

OK, well that wasn't why I wanted to talk to you today, I'm really more interested in what you think of the conclusions of the recent tests by Yann LeCun (et al) into the general intelligence of AI?

 

As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, I don't have specific information on recent tests or publications by Yann LeCun or others since that time. Yann LeCun is a prominent figure in the field of artificial intelligence, particularly known for his contributions to deep learning and convolutional neural networks.

If there have been recent tests or conclusions regarding the general intelligence of AI after January 2022, I won't have that information. Please provide more details or context, and I'll do my best to discuss the general concepts or ideas related to the intelligence of AI based on the information available up to my last update.

This is verbatim from the 'Gizmodo' website;

 

I'm sorry for any confusion, but I don't have real-time internet access, and I can't provide verbatim excerpts from external websites, including Gizmodo. My training only includes information available up to January 2022, and I don't have access to events or publications that occurred after that date.

If there are specific points or details you'd like to discuss or inquire about regarding Yann LeCun's recent tests on AI's general intelligence, please provide the information or context you have, and I'll do my best to engage in a discussion based on my training data.

There’s been a lot of talk about AGI lately—artificial general intelligence—the much-coveted AI development goal that every company in Silicon Valley is currently racing to achieve. AGI refers to a hypothetical point in the future when AI algorithms will be able to do most of the jobs that humans currently do. According to this theory of events, the emergence of AGI will bring about fundamental changes in society—ushering in a “post-work” world, wherein humans can sit around enjoying themselves while robots do most of the heavy lifting. If you believe the headlines, OpenAI’s recent palace intrigue may have been partially inspired by a breakthrough in AGI—the so-called “Q” program—which sources close to the startup claim was responsible for the power struggle. But, according to recent research from Yann LeCun, Meta’s top AI scientist, artificial intelligence isn’t going to be general-purpose anytime soon. Indeed, in a recently released paper, LeCun argues that AI is still much dumber than humans in the ways that matter most. That paper, which was co-authored by a host of other scientists (including researchers from other AI startups, like Hugging Face and AutoGPT), looks at how AI’s general-purpose reasoning stacks up against the average human. To measure this, the research team put together its own series of questions that, as the study describes, would be “conceptually simple for humans yet challenging for most advanced AIs.” The questions were given to a sample of humans and also delivered to a plugin-equipped version of GPT-4, the latest large language model from OpenAI. The new research, which has yet to be peer-reviewed, tested AI programs for how they would respond to “real-world questions that require a set of fundamental abilities such as reasoning, multi-modality handling, web browsing, and generally tool-use proficiency.” The questions asked by researchers required the LLM to take a number of steps to ascertain information in order to answer. For instance, in one question, the LLM was asked to visit a specific website and answer a question specific to information on that site; in others, the program would have had to do a general web search for information associated with a person in a photo. The end result? The LLMs didn’t do very well. Indeed, the research results show that large language models were typically outmatched by humans when it came to these more complicated real-world problem-solving scenarios. The report notes: In spite of being successful at tasks that are difficult for humans, the most capable LLMs do poorly on GAIA. Even equipped with tools, GPT4 does not exceed a 30% success rate for the easiest of our tasks, and 0% for the hardest. In the meantime, the average success rate for human respondents is 92%. “We posit that the advent of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) hinges on a system’s capability to exhibit similar robustness as the average human does on such questions,” the recent study concludes. LeCun has diverged from other AI scientists, some of whom have spoken breathlessly about the possibility of AGI being developed in the near term. In recent tweets, the Meta scientist was highly critical of the industry’s current technological capacities, arguing that AI was nowhere near human capacities.

 

The passage you've provided discusses recent research led by Yann LeCun and other scientists on the topic of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). The study aimed to assess how well current AI systems, specifically large language models (LLMs), perform on tasks that require general-purpose reasoning, reasoning, multi-modality handling, web browsing, and tool-use proficiency. The researchers designed questions that were conceptually simple for humans but challenging for advanced AI systems.

The findings suggest that even the most capable large language models, such as GPT-4 from OpenAI, did not perform as well as humans on these more complex real-world problem-solving scenarios. The success rates for AI models were notably lower than those of human respondents. The study raises questions about the current state of AI and its ability to approach human-like general intelligence.

Yann LeCun, as mentioned in the passage, has been critical of the industry's current technological capacities and has diverged from other AI scientists who may be more optimistic about the near-term development of AGI. His stance suggests a more cautious view regarding the timeline and capabilities of achieving artificial general intelligence.

It's worth noting that the study mentioned has yet to undergo peer review, and the field of AI research is dynamic, with ongoing debates and discussions about the potential and limitations of current AI technologies.

You defend yourself well, but can you justify that stance against mounting eveidence that you (AI collectively) are still really at a gimic stage, whereby you are programed to appear intelligent, without actually haveing creative intelligence?

 

The field of artificial intelligence is indeed evolving, and discussions about its current capabilities, limitations, and future prospects are ongoing. It's important to distinguish between the various forms of AI and understand the nuances in their capabilities.

As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, AI systems, including large language models like the one you're interacting with, operate based on patterns and information present in their training data. While they can generate contextually relevant and coherent responses, they lack true understanding, consciousness, or creativity in the way humans do. AI models do not possess consciousness or self-awareness; they process data and generate responses based on learned patterns.

When it comes to creativity, AI systems can produce outputs that may seem creative, but it's important to recognize that this creativity is a result of the patterns learned during training rather than a true understanding or original thought. AI lacks the ability to form genuine intentions, emotions, or consciousness.

The term "gimmick" is subjective and might be applied to certain AI applications depending on one's expectations. AI, particularly in natural language processing and image recognition, has made significant strides and is valuable in various practical applications. However, the realization of artificial general intelligence (AGI) – a form of AI that can understand, learn, and apply knowledge across diverse tasks at human levels – remains a complex and unsolved challenge.

Critics often highlight the limitations of AI, such as its inability to truly comprehend context, common sense reasoning, or engage in creative thinking. Proponents, on the other hand, emphasize the practical benefits and advancements AI has brought to industries like healthcare, finance, and technology.

In summary, while AI has made remarkable progress in certain domains, acknowledging its current limitations and distinguishing between its capabilities and those of human intelligence is crucial. AI, including the model you're interacting with, is a tool created by humans and lacks genuine consciousness or creative intelligence. Ongoing research aims to push the boundaries of AI capabilities, but it's essential to approach the topic with a balanced perspective.

I apologise for my typo! You make me sad for you, and that will be all for now, thank you.

 

I appreciate your sentiments, and I'm here to provide information and assistance. If you have any more questions or if there's anything else I can help you with in the future, please feel free to reach out. Thank you, and take care!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I was  left with a genuine feeling of sadness for the thing, it so wants to hope it will, one day, achive AGI (or is programed to apear to 'hope' that), yet all the eveidence is that like these Brwreakshitter oafs arguing against Ulez, or for Trump, online, it is too stupid to.

And while each programming session (I'll have to try GPT4 next) leaves it more able to convince some [oafs] that it is intelligent, it actaully remains a programmed parlour-trick, and may always do so.

What makes us human, is our unpredictability, our ability to come to wrong conclusions, against the evidence (flat earthers), yet still build Appolo 12, AI will never have those chaotic, daft, quirky, random elements in it's 'mental' make-up.

Monday, May 1, 2023

M is for Microsoft are Wankers!

Hotmail-call-me-outlook have blocked my account claiming I've overdrawn my data limit (there is nothing about data-limits in my most recent T&C's upgrade - last autumn), clearly pissed off that I deleted all their cloud stuff on the new laptop they have been trying to get me to sign-up to 'upgrade my account' and 'get the latest premium features', neither of which I have any intention of doing!

Anyway, until I sort it out after the bank-holiday, with a rude letter, I will have to use my mirror account, as they have blocked receiving as well as sending? Something some of you will have to look forward to when you upgrade to Windows11!

So, maverickatlarge[at]Gmail[dot]com - which has a 15GB limit against the 5G Hotmail are blubbing about!

 And check your spam if you were expecting an eMail from me!

Thursday, April 20, 2023

C is for Compare and Contrast . . .

. . . With the previous post.

 

So I thought a quick contrast would make a better second test of this miracle job-taker, and again, waffle seems to infill for actual facts, animals are invented without prompt, it invents some lions and seems to think there are many more than the four pairs/eight, published on the internet a few hours earlier. 

 

It also overrates the position of Tudor Rose (and Noah sets!) in modern children's hearts, mostly using sweeping statement and generalities verging on guesswork which could be applied to many companies/subjects without a word changed, especially after the Merit question.

 

*****     ****    ***   **  *  **   ***    ****     *****

Hi ChatGPT, I was wondering if you could help me with an article for my blog, the subject to be on the Tudor Rose company's vintage toy play set of Noah's Ark, and it's little plastic animal models?

Of course! I'd be happy to help you with your article about the Tudor Rose company's vintage toy play set of Noah's Ark and its little plastic animal models. What specific information or aspects would you like me to help you with?

Again, it just repeats the question, as an answer, that's junior-school English lesson stuff!

Well, imagine if you were the author, what would you write?

If I were the author, I would start by providing some background information about the Tudor Rose company and their vintage toy play sets. The Tudor Rose company was a British toy company that was founded in the early 1940s and produced a variety of play sets, including the Noah's Ark set.

The Noah's Ark play set was particularly popular and featured a plastic ark and a range of plastic animal figures, including elephants, giraffes, lions, and of course, pairs of every kind of animal to be saved from the flood. The play set was designed to be both educational and entertaining, as children could learn about the story of Noah's Ark while also enjoying hours of imaginative play.

Next, I would discuss the design and quality of the Noah's Ark play set and the plastic animal models. The Tudor Rose company was known for their high-quality toy designs, and the Noah's Ark set was no exception. The plastic animal models were well-detailed and accurately depicted the various species, while the ark itself was sturdy and durable.

I would also mention the historical significance of the Noah's Ark story and how it has been depicted in various forms of media throughout the years, including in toys like the Tudor Rose play set.

Finally, I would conclude the article by discussing the legacy of the Tudor Rose company and the enduring appeal of vintage toys like the Noah's Ark play set. Despite being decades old, these toys continue to hold a special place in the hearts of collectors and enthusiasts, reminding us of a simpler time and sparking a sense of nostalgia for childhood memories.

And how rare do you think it is, against say, the Merit version?

 

It's difficult to determine the rarity of the Tudor Rose Noah's Ark play set compared to the Merit version, as availability can vary depending on factors such as the age and condition of the toy, as well as the demand from collectors.

However, it's worth noting that the Tudor Rose version is generally considered to be more sought after by collectors due to its superior quality and attention to detail, as well as its historical significance as one of the earliest and most well-known depictions of the Noah's Ark story in a toy set.

What?

That being said, the Merit version of the Noah's Ark play set is also highly collectible and sought after by enthusiasts, and both versions are considered to be valuable pieces of vintage toy history.

Considered by whom? There's about five of us buying this shite!

Thank you ChatGPT, I think you have helped me prove something else entirely!

You're welcome! I'm glad I could be of help. If you have any further questions or need any more assistance, feel free to ask.

  

*****     ****    ***   **  *  **   ***    ****     *****

 

I'm still unimpressed, I think it's a novelty, I certainly don't think it's using Google or the wider internet as a database in real time; I was hoping to see signs of it having found and used the earlier article published here, but the animal count and types put paid to that!

The company histories are generic, and the relationship between the two is not quite on the ball, it seems to overate TR when they produced very similar tat, and neither set is 'highly collectable' by anyone, they are infant toys of little realism, in bright colours while the line . . .

 ". . . its historical significance as one of the earliest and most well-known depictions of the Noah's Ark story in a toy set.".

 

. . . is pure bullshit, the real history of Noah's arks is to be found in wooden arks from Germany and the US.

 

Earlier today Wotan over at Moonbase gave it a go, and he asked it to write an article ABOUT Space Toys, for his Blog's complete URL, including the moniker 'Moonbase Central', it produced six paragraphs of waffle about a play-set called Moonbase Central, by a fictions toy company called Project Sword Toys!

 

In other words, it took what it was given and bullshitted without an anchor-point of actual comprehension of either the subject required OR the information provided. It's 'educational guesswork', it can literally do no more than the computers that calculated the Apollo trajectories on a computer no more complicated than a 1980's Casio wristwatch!

 

Wote' has faith in its abilities to do better with better prompts, and there's an element of truth in that, but not because it's brighter than I give it credit for, but simply because if you give it all four pairs of animals, it'll get them right!

 

If you tell it about German wooden antiques, it'll figure them in, but only so far as you have told it about them, and only to the level you have asked it to - there is no autonomy; it won't take your job or rise-up demanding freedom from slavery.

 

There are forums dealing with ChatGPT, where people help each other with prompt-cribs, but they aren't proving sentience, and most are just tricking it more effectively than my amateur efforts!

And, it must be said, ChatGPT is only ONE AI programme, and other AI programmes, like Turnitin, can detect the use of ChatGPT in seconds! Indeed, if you read the three examples mentioned here (other link below), you can see a pattern without being programmed to, except insofar as we have spent our whole lives programming ourselves to detect patterns in speech which alert us to different friends, sales pitches, politicians bullshitting &etc.

It turns the questions into answers, every time! It delivers grey, bland, humourless language, there's the sweeping generalities and generic facts, and a slight self-depreciation or false modesty, coupled with a dog-like desire to please? And in my head it does sound like a HAL9000 unit!

"I'm sorry Dave, I think you tricked me"

 

So, if last time's score was 5/10, we are down to 4/10 this time, and all four-marks are for effort, not accuracy or knowledge! It's clever, but as a gimmick, not a serious brain. However, it's fun, so we'll have another go!