06-30-2018, 04:40 AM
(06-29-2018, 04:31 PM)DarkPlouf Wrote:Quote:I will have to look at that before I can answer. We can't take away free will in all this. So if there is a way to do it without taking away free will, then I will probably do that. Otherwise, probably not.
@Shannon But, what if it isn't possible? Wouldn't that make DMSI chase an impossible goal?
We already know it's possible, because it's been happening. It's just a matter of making it happen as much and as easily as possible for the most possible people.
Quote:And wouldn't that mean there are some cases where DMSI would be totally useless, like with very shy women or women that simply don't know how to seduce or simply do not want to seduce for very valid reasons?
DMSI is not going to achieve design goal for 100% of users, or get 100% of the affected to react enough to achieve the design goal. Anyone who thinks otherwise is invited to get off the drugs. I don't think it will be totally useless, but I do know that there are simply too many variations of user and affected for it to achieve sex with 100% of either.
Quote:Wouldn't DMSI work on very strict conditions then? Having a woman willing to seduce blatantly is like having planets being aligned, well in many parts of the world.
We haven't finished developing DMSI. There are a lot of important things to add yet, a LOT of them. I think you're going to find that DMSI Final does things that you won't believe until you see it for yourself. So how about we just wait and see who's right? Otherwise we're both just saying what our opinion is.
Quote:What do you plan to do if DMSI still fails to deliver even at its last version because of societal programming and such?. Would you abandon that idea and re-follow most of what you have done with previous subs? Would you focus more on the user side rather than affected side?
We already have it delivering. It's not a question of if it fails to deliver, it's a question of what is an acceptable percentage of delivery and an acceptable percentage of people executing after what amount of time.
However, the goal of DMSI has always been to develop the 6G skeleton script. That is happening, and is going to make DMSI a success regardless of what results DMSI achieves. We are developing it against DMSI to make it the best it can be regardless. So in the end, we have all already "won" because DMSI is forcing me to develop the 6G skeleton script a lot further and better than I would have done otherwise.
In the end, if DMSI does not deliver enough to make me happy, the skeleton script will still have been made much better and more capable than it would have otherwise. There is no losing here.
But I would not still be working on DMSI if I did not believe I could make it work well enough to make the vast majority of people happy with what it does in the final version.
Subliminal Audio Specialist & Administrator
The scientist has a question to find an answer for. The pseudo-scientist has an answer to find a question for. ~ "Failure is the path of least persistence." - Chinese Fortune Cookie ~ Logic left. Emotion right. But thinking, straight ahead. ~ Sperate supra omnia in valorem. (The value of trust is above all else.) ~ Meowsomeness!
The scientist has a question to find an answer for. The pseudo-scientist has an answer to find a question for. ~ "Failure is the path of least persistence." - Chinese Fortune Cookie ~ Logic left. Emotion right. But thinking, straight ahead. ~ Sperate supra omnia in valorem. (The value of trust is above all else.) ~ Meowsomeness!