Same reason they previously imagined technical staff had automatic pre-existing context for their personal environment or the decisions they'd personally made in their work without having to communicate about them.

Too bad for you luzers.

Because Peter Thiel is a known cow-fucker.

Please shut up you fucktard.

I'm unimpressed by the current quality of conspiracy theorists.

We've been able to do photorealism on the desktop since at least the release of UE5, probably before that too. Why were so many people in the comments asking which Hollywood movie studio it was being shot in? Why were they complaining about greenscreens?

Amateurs.

or maybe it's that it took longer for the majority of people who would be unable to resolve these kinds of problems to get to the point where they relied on the system enough to notice them, and now they're aware they're stranded.

I agree that attention is likely to be a factor (it's a sampling issue, for sure) but that doesn't mean the systems are the ones getting worse (or better. It may be completely orthogonal to them but a common experience of expectations not being met).

It's harder to be exhaustive about the problems than it is to describe instances...

One type of problem has to do with definition of terms... this is sort of relevant to the way current systems work, but only sort of. If one was to redefine (via say, a natural process like semantic drift... note that it doesn't need to be the robot that gets this wrong, so to speak) any of the key terms (like "harm" or "human"), the rule would effectively be meaningless for its intended purpose and instead create undefined behavior.

This assumes the robot is doing any kind of deductive reasoning, which is simply not how they work. When I say it's sort of relevant... it's more relevant than most other objections to the 3 laws, because well...it's a problem that might be affected by the definition of semantic relationships. The AI we have is not the kind of reasoning AI that Asimov imagined... So it's still not actually relevant because LLM chatbots are completely inductive and can't magically give rise to actual deductive processes just by having a developer suspend disbelief and comprehension... but it's more relevant than some of the identified problems that the rules would have with a system that actually did act in the way Asimov expected.

In case you were looking to work towards some kind of better set of rules... don't bother. It's not currently meaningful.

Are you suggesting that all computer generated images are interchangeable?

Shut up you fucking moron.

this is the sound of the triple A side of the industry eating its own lies about itself and choking

(you're not wrong, but I daresay most actual developers don't wanna live that life)

Disagree. I don't think many of the folks criticising this even heard about the hardware requirements until later. If that were the issue here we wouldn't see people rolling their eyes at the slop, they'd be lamenting their access to it. They're absolutely not doing that.

If anything, the sentiment I saw was that this was going to be inevitably included in next gen consoles in a way that would influence the industry as a whole... but also that it reduced the authenticity of the game and... I think people underestimate how keenly aware a lot of gamers are of the differences between movies and games... and increasingly the experience of game developers.
Games are not a purely visual medium, and being told that having a snapchat filter over all your gameplay is a better experience goes very close to condescending to customers about how they should be more projected median in their market behaviour... and maybe they should just doomscroll on tiktok because that would be a simpler investment loop for Jensen's real customers.

It's not a new thing that gamers don't enjoy being told they'll just buy something because they're too stupid to do anything but recognise brand logos and purchase what they're told to.

Shut up you ignorant fuckwad.

A number of them are caught in the mentality (excuse) that everyone else would act the same way if given the opportunity while at the same time taking it for granted, unstated, that public opinion must be dictated to the unthinking masses (who, for the purposes of this rationalisation, definitely don't do more or better work than an executive). Therefore the only possible explanation is that their personal political enemies have fooled the people into hating them, and that's the whole mechanism in play.

Whether or not that's the whole mechanism or not is the central gambit of the current Republican playbook, in a similar way to the gambit around whether the content of work actually matters is a gambit around the AI biz. If you're thinking that this would require them to select for candidates who are less likely to have any kind of conscience... then yeah, I think we have always agreed on that part.

I'm of the opinion that this is part of the social cycle around the development of new, more accessible communications technology... When it takes a person less personal effort to compare their experience with an actual contemporary than it does to ingest the cognitive dissonance that goes along with buying into corporate marketing or political messaging... it might take them a while to notice that, but when they hit an inflection point there's a lot more options for them than just being stuck in the cult.

If we're trying to mitigate a structural problem, it's not a matter of preserving the AI's feelings.

I mean...

when their reaction to "the agent deleted the entire AZ" was "we're going to put senior developers in front of code review"

yeah look I don't think you can even be sure the developer knew they had access to do this at this stage... because of the facts, rather than because we don't have the facts.