There are always two main perspectives when it comes to games: the player’s perspective and the developer’s perspective.
The player’s perspective focuses on immersion and the “gamification” aspects of the experience. On the other hand, the developer’s perspective views the game as a piece of software designed to accomplish tasks through data processing.
When asking whether something is possible, it’s important to distinguish between modders and developers. While some modders are developers, being a modder does not necessarily make someone a developer.
When posing questions about the feasibility of certain features or modifications, these questions are framed either from a player’s perspective or a developer’s perspective. Similarly, the answers might also come from one of these perspectives. Here’s a straightforward example that highlights the distinction and why discussions—especially with a modder who is not a developer—can become complicated:
Take the concept of “handcrafted levels.” No AAA, or even AA game, has relied solely on handcrafted levels in over a decade. Today, everything is procedurally generated. However, procedural generation doesn’t start from “each byte”—not even ChatGPT generates text without a foundational training set. Procedural systems require base models or data sets, much like language models rely on training data.
Players, even modders who operate from a player’s perspective, often perceive these “player-centric views” as the reality of game development. This perspective might lead to some success in modding efforts. However, a developer approaches this differently. For a developer, the term “handcrafted levels” often has an entirely different meaning—or might not hold relevance at all. For instance, in many games, including this one, levels are procedurally generated. Numerous files provide the system with guidance on how to construct levels, but these files are not rigid blueprints. Some are flexible templates or models that form disparate parts of the level, recognizable only to someone with a developer’s understanding. That is done, among other reasons, to save space and performance.
So, when you ask whether something is possible, there’s a fundamental issue: the correct way to achieve your desired outcome is not aligned with the method you’re suggesting. While what you’re asking might technically be possible, it is not the approach a developer would use to gather or apply the information effectively.
Many years ago, I recall making a suggestion of somehow getting a certain app to be able to run on a Chromebook (and other related devices). Seriously, I was scoffed at , insulted and basically “scolded” that such a thing “would never happen” being brushed off by the particular community regarding the complexity of the particular app in question, namely second life.
However, within the last year I received an email from Liden Labs informing me that they had just released the working version for the very platform of which I was told “would never happen”.
I sent a message to the originator and politely asked them to refer back to my post regarding the suggestion and to tell those naysayers that they can now kiss my ass.
I am of the opinion that a type of A.I. could perform surveillance monitoring and take action when and where it becomes necessary while being expedient.
This would not require the use of an NPC.
You cannot rule out the possibility of the theory in question.
You can say no to it, but that does not mean it will never happen.
I know for a fact that even sometimes, the seemingly impossible can
become definitely possible.
There’s no “theory” here. There was a question about whether it can be done, and the answer has two parts:
- No, it can’t be done now.
- Even if it could be done, it’s not the right way to do these things.
Let’s say you asked for a $20 wheelbarrow with the following features:
- you steer it with your brain instead of your hands
- wheels aren’t circular but octagonal
Yes, that might be possible one day, but right now you can’t get a $20 wheelbarrow steered by your thoughts. Even if you could, it would be impractical for it to have octagonal wheels. What’s more, if we really had the tech that allowed us to steer things with our brains, I’m guessing we could make better things with it than a octagonally-wheeled wheelbarrow.
Sure, it’s theoretically possible that we might end up in some world where it’s not only feasible, but actually a good idea, because of factors we’re not even aware of now. Maybe we’ll discover a portal to a parallel dimension where the rules of physics are different enough that brain-controlled steering is easy but circular wheels are a problem.
And maybe we’ll find a way to turn farts into an elixir of immortality. Both of these possibilities have something in common: you have to resort to hand-waving to justify them.
But of course, none of that matters. What matters is that you received a mail that Second Life is now available on the platform of your choice, which makes you more of an expert on tech than anyone else. 
O_o
I would have been disappointed had you said anything else.
And I would have been pleasantly surprised to see you react any other way. We live in an age where we’ve normalized the idea that watching YouTube on the shіtter is “doing your own research” makes you more of an expert than someone who spent years learning. Any deviation from that stupidity would have been a breath of fresh air.
I’ll be frankly blunt about this.
I hate YouTube and its wannabe influencers.
Along with any “social media”.
Take that for what it is worth to you.