Yea that was weird to me also. If it can do all that, it should be able to make him shoot with the correct hand.
It definitely could have but whoever made it didn't include that detail in the prompt & the training data has a strong right hand bias
When I see people saying this “AI Bubble” is going to burst. I imagine it’s the same people on horses that thought “this car thing is going to fail” and the same people who said “this internet and social media thing is not going to take off” AI & robots are literally the next major industrial change , humanity changing events in our history and the top trillion dollar companies are pouring 100s of millions into it and it’s the fastest evolving techno we have witnessed. We already see the major impact it’s having and it’s still in its infancy. And you really think the government and these tech companies are going to say “Nah, it’s not going work” and just quit? I don’t understand how people with this mindset can logically have this opinion.
It should never be acceptable. Just shows you how bad basketball was back in the day. You know all the old heads who prop up Shaq like he’d dominate this era. Yet Shaq’s ts% is 10% points lower than curry. Shaq would get run out the gym cuz he wouldn’t come out the paint to guard Steph and 3>2 all day. Even James hardens ts% was better than Shaq and people think he’s a chucker. the game change for a reason old heads can hate they don’t like the style it’s not as fun to watch but it’s better basketball. Any team from this era would destroy a team from 20 years ago just by sheer volume of threes and math. I love AI was one of my favorite players growing up had his shoes and jerseys. But he would be irrelevant in today’s nbs with those percentages.
It's going to be more akin to the dot com bubble. A lot of companies will go out of business, some will shrink, there will be consolidation and negative economic impacts. There are legitimate use cases for AI (less so than the internet though), it's not going anywhere as a technology, but it's not going to be as massive as the market thinks it is. Everyone I've heard from who actually knows a lot about the technology and what's going on in the industry agrees it's a bubble. It's just the business executive types with their heads in the clouds and visions of stock market-based profits who are pushing it, and even they don't believe their own words. They're liars by trade. The funny thing is I'm one of those people who thinks widespread adoption of the car and social media to the degree that we did them were both mistakes and were largely pushed onto us by corporations trying to profit off of us at the expense of our wellbeing. So saying what you said isn't the "gotcha" you think it is. (By the way, regular people didn't just ride horses around everywhere before cars, that's a myth. Most people walked, and once trains came around, took the train for longer distances.) Anyway, my point is, even if AI is successful economically, which it won't be to nearly the degree the stock market thinks it will, that doesn't mean it's a good thing. And by the way, I love computer technology and work with it for a living. I'm typing this on a computer that recently got a new high-end Nvidia graphics card. So I'm not being a luddite here. Sometimes technology is good for us, sometimes it's bad, sometimes it's a mixed bag.
Trust me I get the sentiment from a purely stock market / corporate greed or smokes & mirrors point of view. But some people say it as if the technology itself is just going to die and go away. It literally has the potential for us to make Hollywood level movies specifically customized to us for the price of a movie ticket. We can literally almost make a real life Star Trek holodeck once we figure out the hologram part. That’s not going to just go away or be aborted. And fair point about transportation, but you know what I meant. The ratio of horses used vs cars nowdays is completely flipped. And I think alot of people are viewing current AI & robots (which is the equivalent to a model T car) and judging it because it doesn’t have all the features and capabilities of a modern car today which a skewed way to view especially since we literally have history and experience to show us how quick technology can change. And I think honestly we can’t view the financial bubble the same way either. Because once the technology is perfected more, it can literally almost print those companies money. If it gets smart enough to do 100% arbitrage trading in micro seconds, they will make their money back ten fold. If it can do the work of 60% of their current staff indefinitely, they will make their money back exponentially. The moral, philosophical ,& social implications is a COMPLETELY different discussion. But I think viewing this as the bubble bursting the technology is short sighted. I have been dabbling with LLMs and I have learned so much. I have been able to automate it controlling programs where I literally just say design a picture of x or go search the internet for Y or make a playlist on x. Or pull up a video on x. I just even figured out a way to install a free local LLM Google Gemma 4 on my android and give it a custom voice to talk back to me and it can literally control my phone and open apps from voice command. The future is everyone will have a personal ai assistant that will literally feel like having a digital genie. That’s too big of a human leap for them to abandon
You say this but the game also allowed more physicality. Could Curry dominate the way he could if he could be strong armed around the floor? Players were bigger for a reason. Those centers were wide shouldered for a reason. It wasn't just for the fun of it, it was because they knew they had to be in order to bang around with Hakeem and Shaq and bump Mutombo out of position etc etc It's pointless to argue about eras, it's an irrelevant argument. If Curry grew up to play in the 90s guess what? He would have changed his body to be bigger and stronger too. If Shaq grew up to play in this era he would have leaned down to be slimmer and more agile. They grew up and played in their times and adjusted to their times. Also...it not being as fun to watch is not a throwaway statement. At the end of the day, it exists as entertainment, if people get bored of watching the sport then it becomes one of the many other sports that people don't care about because they are not fun to watch. So I think that should be considered as the sport continues to grow. I think turning it into a complete finesse sport might not be what is best for the sport moving forward.
Absoultey he would dominate. That just means they would let Draymond set even more illegal and moving screens. No level of hand checking would be able to stop curry cuz he doesn’t score with the ball. He moves non stop. Greatest cheat code in history. If curry can shoot over Wemby he can score on anything. plus the athleticism is just vastly different now. Who cares if smaller slower guys can hand check. The dribble packages and moves are vastly different and more advanced now. I think you need to go back and watch a 90s game and see how bad the defense actually was. Don’t go off memory and highlights, dude just letting guys shoot wide open shots cuz they couldn’t make them. Don’t get me wrong there were some really good players back then. But after top 20 there is a huge fall off in talent compared to now. Difference now is all the role players are soo much better. Anyone can go off for 30-40 points and it’s not because the defense is bad. It’s just hard to guard that much space. Guys are pulling up from 35 feet or shooting step back threes at a higher clip than guys use to shoot them standing still wide open. So the three point shot and better role players create a larger variance and makes it much harder to win, Post up offense is leaving the league not cuz the bigs aren’t skilled and can’t bang it’s because it’s an inefficient offense. Prime Shaq would not be efficient in today’s nba compared to other stars. That is why no one posts. If the so called most dominant ever isn’t actually dominant what’s the point.
Draymond setting screens against who? Draymond 100% couldn't play in the 90s, he was too small and he had no hope of guarding actual traditional centers. He works now because he can guard against these quasi centers, these guys too tall to be anything else. you want a good example of what a 90s center would look like? Steven Adams. Imagine Draymond going against that every night and then you can imagine him on the bench. All great players would be fine no matte the era, they would adjust, but players like Draymond are lucky they play in today's era. But power centers still have success today, Jalen Duren a great example, so Shaq would be fine. Shaq was UBER athletic too, he bulked up over time because that's what going up against the likes of Hakeem and Mourning and Mutombo and Ewing does to a guy. Defense was harder because it allowed the defender to get away with more, I don't think this is really up for an argument, the NBA changed the rules for a reason, you can't just hand wave it away, the numbers themselves immediately show it too. You're talking about Curry running off screens and such, like...there were players then that played like that too? It wouldn't be some alien thing to those players, they would adjust their defense accordingly. As for the low post thing, nah, Jokic has been one of the best players the past few seasons and he's a low post player at heart. I will stand by this like I always have. Efficiency is overrated because when it comes down to it you will win or lose based on your guy being able to score. We heard all this junk about mid range being dead, being inefficient, low post being dead, and then SGA and Jokic come to disprove all that junk. You are down 2, can your guy get a bucket? The other team is on a 10-0 run, can you guy stop their momentum with some scores? That's what it comes down to in the end... Besides, your argument means that Hakeem would not be good in the modern NBA, since he too was primarily taking shots in 'low efficiency' zones. This is why its pointless to argue era vs era. What Iverson did was acceptable at the time because it worked. It won his team games. Also, funnily enough, he lost his only shot at a ring against another high volume chucker in Kobe Bryant lol...
Defense was worse cus of illegal defense first of all. You just had to beat 1 guy and the lane was wide open. not to mention all these big bulky centers couldn’t score outside 2 feet. Are you really trying to argue with me that Draymond couldn’t play in 90s? That’s ridiculous. He just as big as Charles Barkley who dominated that era. Not to mention he can set screens on guards like Kenny smith John Stockton. If the opposing teams defense on Steph is to put a center on him, he won’t even need a screen to drop 60….. Draymond woulda thrived in an era he welcomes the physicality. He won’t be afraid to throw some elbows, kick a few guys in the nuts, hug some people, tackle some folks. All the stuff he does now.
Charles Barkley dominated the era because he could dribble and score...Draymond cannot do those things...Draymond's value to a team is low post defense, setting screens, and passing the ball. He's average at best at everything else. We really think Draymond is locking up Ewing, Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson? Cmon now, I can't see it. If Draymond is not commanding the paint then his value goes down and its a lot harder to do that when you have these big bulky giants down there you have to actually move off the spot. I think he'd be a depth player in the 90s, Draymond found himself in the perfect situation, he was about to be out of the league until Kerr came along. That's not me saying that, that's him saying that. Here is the thing though...the opposing team wouldn't have to put a center on Steph, the center would just stick down low, they would have to because remember...down there is Shaq, down there is Hakeem, if you're trying to guard them with some lanky PF, that player will get eaten and skinned alive. You're going on about how dominant Curry would be but forgetting how dominant a player like Hakeem or Shaq or Ewing would be in this era too...again, just look at Jokic. Look at Embiid when he was actually healthy and was motivated at proving himself. Even Duren who is not skilled up feasts on these lanky weak bigs. Also, Reggie Miller was that era's Steph Curry, how well did he do? I mean he was a great player but was he an MVP level player? Even Reggie Miller and other shooters will tell you how much they would love to have played in the modern era. Why are we acting like 90s defenses wouldn't know what to do about a screen? It was a lot harder to create space then, I don't think Curry would have magically changed that. Players then understood switching and slipping through screens, this was not some new thing that players learned to do in 2010. Also, again, your whole argument means you think Hakeem would be less of a player in the modern era since his scoring was midrange and low post...are you really going to apply that to Hakeem???
I do think Hakeem would be less effective in today’s nba. Scoring 2 points on 50% shooting is terrible today. It just doesn’t work. Hakeem would still be a great player, great defender but giving him the ball on the block would not lead to wins. But also it’d be different Hakeem did have 3 point range. He may just completely change his play style cuz he was that good. no one said anything about draymond guarding those guys. He’s a PF why would he be guarding them. But he could in a pinch. He gets underneath peoples skin. Dudes one of the greatest defenders league has seen and you give him no credit. Also to say he can’t dribble is false he has better handles than Barkley. Thing about it is he wouldn’t even need to guard them or do anything different. Let them score who cares you can’t beat GS like that. you really can’t compare Reggie to Steph. Steph is 10x the shooter Reggie is and 10x the player. Reggie woulda been better if he shot 10 more threes a game but he didn’t. Such low volume and didn’t even come close to Steph’s percentages. if you want to call Jokic a post player that’s fine. But he also operates further out in a high post area. He only works cuz 1 he’s the best passer the league has ever seen. 2 he’s also the most efficient scorer the league has ever seen by far. Cuz he also shoots threes at 40% clip. He’s not one dimensional for every 2 he takes he probably gets an assist to someone for 3.
