Irrational Gamers

Apparently I'm a fan of "AI slop" and a "gooner" etc according to numerous young men on Threads (and unlike I imagined, "gooner" isn't being used in the normal sense of an Arsenal supporter, but some other sense I've never heard of). These people are all being seriously ridiculous and no matter how many of them I respond to and point out how ludicrous they are, there's seemingly an infinite number of them piling on. I've had to block from 15 to 20 of them. 

So they're all claiming that this graphical enhancement called DLSS 5 is "AI slop". That it's a travesty (though they didn't use that word). In fact their hostility to this DLSS 5 is bordering on deranged.  

It was just an offhand post I made saying that this computer game character (Grace in Resident Evil Requiem, see the image below or see 1m 34s onwards on the video featured here) looks much better.  OK, they don't agree. But so what? Why is this so important? Who the heck cares what they like or dislike, and why should they be bothered about my opinion on such a boring subject?

Moreover, these people are not using the phrase "AI slop" in its correct sense. It refers to the fact the net is being deluged with fake images and videos where people are being fooled into thinking they are genuine. Or at least meaningless AI generated images. It does not mean merely enhancing graphics via generative AI where no deception is being perpetuated. Using it in this latter sense, in addition to the former, merely serves to dilute the term to effective vacuity. 

Edited to add:  I've just noticed that the comments underneath the article I linked to are almost all unremittingly hostile to this DLSS 5 too. I'm the only one that likes it, well, apart from the 2 reviewers in the video who love it. I find it bizarre that almost everyone thinks it makes the graphics worse.

This reminds me of a meme:

Yes, as with many other topics I'm in a very small minority!

My first ever novels

I've heard that there are people who say that when they were 6 years old they read novels intended for adults. This is in stark contrast to me as I'm not sure I could read at all at 6! And that wasn't a lack of desire on my part, though I'm not sure how much effort I put into learning to read. It seemed to me that reading was too difficult. Indeed, back then I viewed the ability to read as being almost magical. Just the fact that these marks on a piece of paper could mysteriously represent words and sentences. 

I did eventually learn to read, maybe when I was about 7. The first books I read were books like the Faraway Tree series and Wishing Chair series by Enid Blyton. I loved them to bits!  There's nothing I've ever read since that comes close... well, maybe the Narnia books when I was a bit older. But certainly nothing I've read as an adult. 

Which makes me think; how would a 6 year old get anything out of a novel intended for adults? And if they were sufficiently gifted to read novels for adults at 6 years old — in stark contrast to me — did this translate as being exceptionally gifted when they reached adulthood? I don't think there's much evidence for that?

Anyway, at about 7 or 8 I tried reading a novel intended for older children; namely "the Ragamuffin mystery", also by Enid Blyton. I didn't really understand much of it and certainly wasn't particularly engaged by it. Though in subsequent years I loved all the Blyton books for older children. But never as much as I enjoyed the Enchanted wood and Wishing Chair books.

At 11 or 12 years old, I finally read my first ever novel intended for adults — the day of the triffids. I was really intrigued by the idea of almost the whole world becoming totally blind overnight, and the sort of stuff I still really love reading. Indeed, I've read the day of the triffids a fair few times since my first reading. However, when I read it at 11/12 there were parts of it I didn't really understand. I can recall not really understanding the 2nd chapter! But now I understand it all, and it is brilliant!