I don’t know about the best (because I started back in the 80s with a commodore 64, not exactly repeatable) but a good way is this guy: https://eater.net/6502
The keyword is consistent. Some settings have magic as inherently chaotic and difficult to control.
A good rule of thumb is that if a fantasy setting has a school for magic, it’s probably a science. If it’s knowledge passed from master to magically gifted student, it’s probably not very consistent.
Just to make sure my understanding was accurate, I asked Gemini to critique my explanation:
.
Unless it’s lying to me about itself, I was able to explain the basics of it in two relatively simple sentences. Of course that doesn’t cover everything, but Gemini thinks that’s a pretty good overview. After expanding on each point in its reply, it said this:
I think a lot of the confusion over these models stems from hype and marketing that makes them out to be more than what they are.
Science is indistinguishable from magic, if you don’t care to learn how science works.
Or how magic works
But… if there’s a consistent system along which magic works which can be studied/researched/formulated, then isn’t it just… science?
nobody is convincing me assembly programming isnt magic
Study a 6502. It’s just electrons doing the only thing they can.
whats the best way to start?
I don’t know about the best (because I started back in the 80s with a commodore 64, not exactly repeatable) but a good way is this guy: https://eater.net/6502
The keyword is consistent. Some settings have magic as inherently chaotic and difficult to control.
A good rule of thumb is that if a fantasy setting has a school for magic, it’s probably a science. If it’s knowledge passed from master to magically gifted student, it’s probably not very consistent.
Yes.
That’s not how magic works
Humans have yet to prove it.
Well, it sometimes does
Watch “Agatha all Along” - the series is managing to answer exactly this question with a great script and cast.
/s
I absolutely feel like in a thousand years, we’ll talk to a machine and not even know how it works.
Hell, I look at the computer in front of me and only feel like I know a fraction of what’s going on.
Hail the Omnissiah!
That’s what neural networks are now. We do not know how it works under the hood. We just feed it training data.
We know how it works, but we can’t explain exactly how it got to the answers.
We do, though.
Just to make sure my understanding was accurate, I asked Gemini to critique my explanation:
Unless it’s lying to me about itself, I was able to explain the basics of it in two relatively simple sentences. Of course that doesn’t cover everything, but Gemini thinks that’s a pretty good overview. After expanding on each point in its reply, it said this:
I think a lot of the confusion over these models stems from hype and marketing that makes them out to be more than what they are.
Magnets, how do they work?