[flagged]
That’s an interesting framing. I’m not sure I agree with your strong conclusion but that’s mostly because I think there’s a second axis about maintenance – you can make a grand strategy game in a couple months but it’s harder to make it balanced, fun, and to keep shipping updates which players like. A prototype or hobby experiment doesn’t have that problem nearly as much and I think that’s where we see such bimodal reactions where some people think it’s a huge productivity boost and others see modest or even negative results.
This is juleiie's laughable comment that illustrates my point exactly, and is a textbook example of the Dunning–Kruger effect, making brash overconfident claims without sharing the title and URL of any games they've actually made and tuned and finished and shipped and supported:
>Good luck making a grand strategy game in two months holidays without an LLM. Now you can.
Yet you didn't, juleiie. The term for you is "Armchair Architect".
https://wiki.c2.com/?ArmchairArchitect
>One who can solve all the software world's problems from his armchair but considers actual implementation to be out of scope. Usually identified by a casual dismissal of real-world problems that many people have struggled with. As well as a dismissal of everything that anyone else has actually built as crap.
>They have lots of seemingly great ideas that will be all things to all people but they avoid testing them with anything as crude as reality or running code.
Chris Trottier, who actually has shipped games like The Sims, describes the concept of "Tuned Emergence" and "Design by Accretion":
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25964699
DonHopkins on Jan 30, 2021 | parent | context | favorite | on: Factorio 1.1 stable
The Sims (the original version) started with around 4 developers during its first 6 or so years, and it took quite a long time to develop. And yes, the team was quite tight and focused, with excellent "high" quality communication (in that we smoked lots of weed together). More developers and artists and designers came in towards the end, after EA bought Maxis, but the original version had a much smaller team than any of the subsequent version.
It pains me to recall how crude and primitive it was even a year and a half before the release (check out the awful flamingo and telephone and fish tank graphics, not to mention the characters and animations themselves, like pot-bellied Archie Bunker always holding a cigar in his hand, and the naughty scenario description text @ 40:44) -- a whole lot of content and user interface and tuning was done at the very last moment:
The Sims Steering Committee - June 4 1998. A demo of an early pre-release version of The Sims for The Sims Steering Committee at EA, developed June 4 1998.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zC52jE60KjY
Chris Trottier, one of the designers, calls it "Tuned Emergence" and "Design by Accretion":
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20772916
Here's an interview with Chris Trottier, one of the designers of The Sims, in which she describes "Tuned Emergence and Design by Accretion".
Sims Designer Chris Trottier on Tuned Emergence and Design by Accretion
https://web.archive.org/web/20110408034710/https://www.donho...
>Chris' honest analysis of how and why "the gameplay didn't come together until the months before the ship" is right on the mark, and that's the secret to the success of games like The Sims and SimCity.
>The essential element that was missing until the last minute was tuning: The approach to game design that Maxis brought to the table is called "Tuned Emergence" and "Design by Accretion". Before it was tuned, The Sims wasn't missing any structure or content, but it just wasn't balanced yet. But it's OK, because that's how it's supposed to work!
>In justifying their approach to The Sims, Maxis had to explain to EA that SimCity 2000 was not fun until 6 weeks before it shipped. But EA was not comfortable with that approach, which went against every rule in their play book. It required Will Wright's tremendous stamina to convince EA not to cancel The Sims, because according to EA's formula, it would never work.
>If a game isn't tuned, it's a drag, and you can't stand to play it for an hour. The Sims and SimCity were "designed by accretion": incrementally assembled together out of "a mass of separate components", like a planet forming out of a cloud of dust orbiting around star. They had to reach critical mass first, before they could even start down the road towards "Tuned Emergence", like life finally taking hold on the planet surface. Even then, they weren't fun until they were carefully tuned just before they shipped, like the renaissance of civilization suddenly developing science and technology. Before it was properly tuned, The Sims was called "the toilet game", for the obvious reason that there wasn't much else to do!
It's hell for my ADHD, personally. It's an infinite rabbit hole generator and distraction machine. I have to use browser extensions to filter out stuff like Stack Exchange suggestions for interesting topics, too. I have had to block Wikipedia in the past to avoid rabbit holes there
I'm better now than I used to be but I am skeptical of people who claim to both be good at multi-tasking and also have ADHD. My experience with ADHD is that multi -tasking is not a strength, it's a sign of distraction
Interesting point of view from one who's been there. Intuitively the comment makes a lot of sense.
In a way human multitasking resembles how single-threaded computer programs work. That is, we focus on one task at a time but tasks can be interleaved to give an illusion of doing several tasks at the same time. Managing several tasks requires remembering the next step to do when leaving one task to attend to another.
That suggests ADHD people lose track of where they left off when performing several tasks. Distraction plays a role, but I think problematic working memory is the major issue. Among ADHD researchers there's a saying, "people with ADHD know what to do but don't do what they know." ADHD task performance may improve with proper treatment.
Not quite. At least not for me. My problem is hyperfocus. If I switch tasks I might go down a rabbit hole and forget to change back. It is similar to being distracted, except the distraction can still be legitimate work stuff. My focus is like a freight train, it's hard to change tracks
Which can seem like an attention problem when you're trying to change me from focused code mode to "jump on a call" mode
For many with ADHD starting tasks is hard and resuming a task can be just as hard. Constant experience of "starting from scratch" is burdensome, and contributes to inertia and inefficiency. More than not, a tough problem to solve.
I've long thought disability associated with ADHD is generally underappreciated despite decades of study proving the point.
Self-observation isn't easy. I always considered it a sign of growth when people shared what they've seen.
Don't know the tests you refer to, but it's recognized that many adults have ADHD symptoms not quite meeting DSM-5 criteria for ADHD. It's called "subsyndromal" ADHD which causes as much disability and responds to treatment just as well as "full" ADHD cases. IOW it's absurd to regard someone with 6 symptoms as belonging in a different category vs. a person having "only" 5 symptoms. Anyway, ADHD is a condition that usually responds to treatment, no reason not to check into it.
My goal is my own chemical discovery. Mostly through natural plants and setting
Agents let me complete things in parallel all the time.
They also let me build tools that manage all the attention-grabbing things in my life. Something I've been meaning to do "tomorrow" for a good decade.
I've already built custom notification tools for all the "I'll just quickly check hn/lobste.rs/tildes/whatever" so that they'll tell me if there's something actionable, closing down the rabbit hole for me. My email is pre-filtered by an agent that pings me if there's something urgent. My IRC client is custom-built for the specific way I use it etc etc.
An online community works when participants learn and share knowledge gained. Contests, with self or others, disrupt learning and sharing, hence by definition constitute "bad behavior". If it exists, the hyperwar you allude to will harm communities more than all LLMs combined could do.
Care to share it?
I still do start from bottom up to refactor everything into workspace members and this way, parallelism is way easier
> LLMs reward seeing forest instead of trees.
Not just forest. LLMs reward seeing structures and designs, and it still requires a lot of creativity to design it well. I have to do a lot of architect works for that, like package layout, testing strategies (BDD vs TDD vs E2E), setting up access to platforms and digging out what strategies to apply...etc.
> People focused on the trees will however lag behind as implementation details matter less and less.
Trees like demonstrations and example code are even more important. This is because those are literally post-training materials for the LLMs
> Specialists will be fed to the model weights
I don't think so. New labor laws are certainly going to be introduced by the politicans to tackle this.
> generalists will inherit the world.
Now the problem is how far do you want to stretch the systemic thinking, and you also get burned out quicker.
But I don't want to use AI to code, in large part because I iterate on ideas by working directly with code. Attempting to program through an LLM intermediary becomes like attempting to eat using soft silicone chopsticks.