Objection

Go has been changed a lot by technology, mostly for the better. The ability to review every game you play with AI, for free, is an invaluable resource, and we've also learned a lot about the game from AI.

But, there are also several limitations that it's important to be mindful of. The AI likes to play on the razor's edge because it can read well enough to know exactly when it's actually in danger. A human player trying to emulate that style will often just get themselves killed. Human teachers can still be more useful, despite being weaker, because they can better identify trends in a person's thought process and explain the "why" behind a move, communicating the general principles that we as humans need to rely on because we aren't computers and can't read out every variation every time. Sometimes people get too obsessed with trying to play the "top engine move," and it can blow up in their faces.

I was at a go event a couple years ago where a professional from overseas was reviewing people's games, and somebody got in an argument over a move because the pro criticized his move, but the player said the AI backed him up. I can kinda understand both sides of that. On the one hand, if the AI says something, it's not wrong. But on the other hand, I think it's important to consider multiple perspectives and incorporate them into your play, and you'll always be able to put things into the AI, so I think there's something to be said for biting your tongue and just letting the pro give their perspective with the limited time you have them for. I guess I've never been one to be afraid of telling stronger players when I think they're wrong, but it feels kind of disrespectful to me to pull AI on a visiting pro.

I guess one part of the game I find appealing and beautiful is that there's so many ways to play it, and your moves can serve as an expression of your personality. Introducing this sort of objective lens can get in the way of developing your style and making your own judgements. On the other hand, getting feedback that tells you when your judgement is way off can help your refine your instincts going forward. It's just that it's important to understand why the AI is saying something, and to understand that a minor percent loss can be worth it to push the game in a direction that's easier for you to play. It's a complicated subject, all-in-all.

"Roguelike" has become overused to the point that it's basically meaningless. Nobody's even played Rogue so it just means "a game that's like other games that are described as roguelike," which is like, any game. There's a set of games where the term originated where it actually made sense, games like Angband, ADOM, Castle of the Winds, etc, that are all closely related where the term makes sense. Cogmind and Pixel Dungeon are more recent examples.

Some of it gets resolved by describing those as "traditional roguelikes," and using other descriptors like "action rougelike" for Hades or "rougelike deckbuilder" for Slay the Spire, but like at that point why not just use "Hadeslike" or "Spirelike" instead of constantly harking back to this 40 year old game?

Wrong.

Wrong.

Again, you don't get to just say, "No it isn't" over and over again without actually explaining why it's not analogous. That's how basic reason works.

Also, you can put multiple things in one comment so you don't spam the thread.

i’m not making an argument. i’m contradicting yours.

Yes, you're literally just disagreeing with anything I (or anyone else on my side) says, with zero supporting evidence or reason. It's not an argument, just contradiction. It's obvious that's what you're doing, but still hilarious that you would come out and admit it.

wrong. i said it is not causal.

Can you please explain what the difference is between an action being causal of another action vs an action... causing another action to happen?

wrong

Wrong.

Since you seem incredibly confused about both how to argue and basic facts about reality, let me walk you through this.

You claimed that purchasing meat has no effect on whether more meat gets produced, because "they make their own decisions." This argument rests on the completely insane premise that paying people to do things does not influence their behavior or make you complicit when they decide to do what you paid them to do. If this were true, it would lead to the absurd conclusion that hiring a hitman to kill someone would not make you complicit in the act, because, by your logic "they make their own decisions" regardless of who's paying them to do what.

If you want to dispute that, you have to actually find a fault in that chain of reasoning, not just say, "Nuh uh" over and over again.

An argument’s a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition. Contradiction’s just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

Why did you make four separate one line responses to my comment, all at the same time? You realize you can put multiple things in one comment lol.

Also not only is that exactly what happened, but you're literally doing it again. This is just the Monty Python argument clinic sketch.

Why not? You're saying that market signals don't matter, it's individual choice all the way down. You're paying people to produce meat and put it on the shelves, but according to you, that doesn't have any effect on the amount of meat produced and put on shelves. How is that not analogous to paying someone to kill someone and then pretending that that doesn't make you complicit?

You don't seem to understand how analogies work. You don't get to just say "Nuh uh" when I follow your principles to their natural conclusions. That's just a basic form of logical argumentation.

No, it's literally what you said. Is what I described not a counterfactual?

"Your honor, it's true I purchased a hitman's services, but I didn't cause his actions. He made his own decision, it just happened to be the one I paid him to do."

"Your honor, it's true that the deceased died of blood loss after I stabbed them, however, the idea that they would've survived had I not stabbed them is a counterfactual and therefore cannot be proven at all."

Literally a 5 year old could grasp this.

When you buy something, it tells the person who sold it to you to stock more of it, which tells the people making it to make more of it. Since meat production involves killing animals, it means that when you buy meat, it causes more animals to be killed. If you go vegan and stop buying meat, it causes there to be less demand, which reduces the number of animals killed compared to if you didn't.