krapp

Provide your rationale for why that wouldn't happen, then. Otherwise you coming into this thread to vent your spleen at me personally doesn't reduce the signal to noise ratio of Hacker News either.

What is there to converse about? Americans voted for this, and Americans refuse to stop it. There's nothing to do but sit back and watch the self-inflicted wounds finally kill the beast.

San Francisco was where the jobs you want were but now those jobs belong to a Claude account.

The rhetoric was a lie. Capitalists lie. That new technology always creates a surplus of newer, better jobs and quality of life always improves for everyone was a lie. That you can "just retrain" and everything will remain the same was a lie.

Even if you "retrain" your quality of life will go down because the market value of your life will go down as automation and AI improve, unless you're a member of the capitalist class. Which, if you need to work for a living at all, you aren't. No matter what you do unless you're personally wealthy your quality of life will go down. That's just what an efficient market does to most people, and AI is going to make the market brutally efficient.

It is a viable option. "Quality of life" is a luxury and programmers no longer belong to the class that can afford it. Do what everyone else does and go wherever the jobs are and live at whatever quality the market decides that you deserve.

It meets your personal bar, which matters to no one but you. Thanks for sharing.

That's a valid point of view, but also very postmodern and ahistorical. It doesn't represent how religions were actually intended to be viewed or practiced.

>Your point here seems to be based more on faith than anything concrete. It is a sibling with the idea humans have "immortal souls" and the like - something we would like to be true more than anything that actually is.

No, I'm not invoking the concept of an immortal soul, and it's incredibly frustrating that this is the go-to assumption anyone makes when criticism of AI's creative capabilities.

It's entirely possible to be a pure physicalist while also believing AIs aren't capable of creativity because they aren't capable of being human, and don't have the necessary human experience to inform the processes they simulate, because creativity is fundamentally a means of human communication. That isn't actually an argument from the supernatural, and unless you believe it's possible to derive a brain simulation of Hayao Miyazaki complete with his lived experiences and memories simply by studying the specific technical aspects of his animation style in aggregate, then I think the why of AI's limitations in this regard should be obvious.

Women have been dehumanized for millennia, though.

This kind of misogyny would have been used as a joke in All in the Family 50 years ago, and the premise that "liberal women" were a threat to society is as old as feminism, if not as old as civilization itself. You could probably find some variant of "women these days" carved in cuneiform onto a clay tablet.

That seems like more of a feature than a bug to me. Using C# in Godot means you have all of the Nuget libraries at your disposal, whereas no one is writing libraries in GDScript, because no one is using it outside of Godot.

Meanwhile to extend Godot usefully you have to use C++ and a plugin API that's arguably no less complicated than adapting an existing language as the scripting language would have been.

>This is an example of an LLM being used to search a massive database of scattered text and files.

That isn't how LLMs work. LLMs are statistical language models, not search engines[0,1]. They can be prompted to call external software to search databases, but they themselves are not capable of doing so, and more often than not they generate responses based on their own model, which may not be accurate. We've had technology that was capable of searching databases for decades without the quirk of not being capable of presenting that information accurately.

>Are you saying LLM's are not suited for searching through text?

I am saying that first and foremost they don't do that and furthermore that they are less suited as a substitute for that than what we had before. An obvious example of this is the AI feature of Google Search, which I've seen hallucinate results numerous times. But you can also look up the numerous times AI has fabricated citations when used in scientific research.

[0]https://medium.com/@himadri.abm/large-language-models-are-no...

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40814536

I'd rather we not feel obligated to use LLMs for purposes they aren't suited to rather than just "being realistic" about the consequences of using them everywhere for everything.

I've said more than once that no matter how much Ghibli stuff you train an AI on, it's never going to spontaneously come up with a Princess Mononoke or Spirited Away. People don't realize there's an aspect to creativity that dwells within the human brain and the morass of personal visceral human experience that can't be reconstructed and simulated from expression alone - it's a lossy process. And there's more to it than mere randomness and novelty.

That's why no matter how good AI gets, it's only ever as good as the human effort put into it. It's very good at being very technically mediocre.

Yes. And it's actually part of the reason the video game market crashed in the 80s, because of how misleading the artwork was.

This is why the first Nintendo games released in the US had explicit images of the game graphics on the cartridges.

No, I'm not.

The guidelines demonstrate that it isn't merely show and tell: https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html

    On topic: things people can run on their computers or hold in their hands. For hardware, you can post a video or detailed article. For books, a sample chapter is ok.
    Off topic: blog posts, sign-up pages, newsletters, lists, and other reading material. Those can't be tried out, so can't be Show HNs. Make a regular submission instead.
    The project should be non-trivial. Don't post quickly-generated one-offs; anybody can do that now. Share something that is deeply personal and interesting to you.
    Explain how and why. 

Also see dang's comments on the validity of various submissions:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

And in particular this comment that touches on AI submissions in particular (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48118727) from which I provide an excerpt:

    In software it's fascinating how configuration management (that boringest of all phrases) is becoming the hard part. How do you share and version the source? 
    What even is the source? Is it the prompts? That's where the OP heads at the end: "share it somewhere — or, better yet, just a screenshot and the prompts you 
    used to make it." But when I floated a couple trial balloons about whether we might use this for Show HN—i.e., don't just share the code you generated, 
    because that's not the source anymore; instead share the prompts—we got a lot of pushback from knowledgeable people 
    (summarized here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47213630).

The topic is supposed to be narrow. It's supposed to be more than just show and tell, and definitely not "whatever the person wants."

The purpose of Show HN is to share and discuss code, not to advertise products. That isn't freeloading entitlement, it's the point of being here.

Yes and nowadays no one would even bother put in that much effort. They would have an AI generate the box art and the jokes. The jokes wouldn't even be funny, but no one would care because "human jokes aren't usually funny."

SDL3's properties API uses an internal hashtable I'm waiting for them to make public.

I also like https://github.com/tidwall/hashmap.c for general use.

It still bothers me that game engines come with their own bespoke languages like GDScript. Godot is a bit better than others for having C# support and forks in other languages but really no other language will ever be as integrated with the framework as GDScript, And GDScript is never going to be a general purpose programming language, and that necessarily creates lock-in.

I'm currently messing with some old projects written in Game Maker 5 and let me tell you it would be so much easier if I didn't have to do internet archaeology just to figure out how GML worked 20 years ago.

Maybe?

I think it depends on what GUI tools it provides. Game engines aren't designed to be general purpose application frameworks either.

It's probably doable in Godot but you'll probably be building a lot of systems there as well, and probably writing a lot of plugins.

But people do it. I've seen plenty of applications in Unity.

Oh shit, actual human talent!

>but it wouldn't surprise me if a bulk load of ufo sightings were black projects being tested.

Sure, I'd bet a lot of "black triangle" sightings are exactly that. But if the "tic-tac" lore is to be taken at face value, the implication is that the US military has invented antigravity technology, or reverse engineered it from alien spacecraft. I really don't think that's plausible. If the US had that kind of technology we would be so far ahead of the rest of known science that there would be no value in keeping it secret.

I strongly disagree. The preferred accuracy of an official government source of information should be higher than a google search. The bar should be as close to 100% accuracy as possible as well as 100% accountability and transparency.

"Sometimes computers just make shit up now but that's OK because humans do to and if they do we can just sue them" should not be acceptable.

It's a complaint about LLMs that includes this application, because it applies to all LLMs including this application.

Yes. And none of them are reliable. LLM "hallucinations" are implicit to their structure and function, you can't just tell them to be honest.

inb4 "humans aren't reliable either." You, person typing that very response out right now, you are part of the problem.

Phallic symbolism was common in many religions. The Abrahamic religions are kind of unusual for their hangups in that regard.

The antidote to Roko's Basilisk is realizing that it's creepypasta nonsense. It isn't real. It can't exist. It can't hurt you. You don't have to be afraid of it anymore than you have to be afraid of Slenderman or slipping into the Backrooms.

>The joke about Pascal's wager, and I love to point it out to some associates, is that it embarks a devious hidden assumption: that the wager's idea of God is an entity that would see faith in its existence as a positive, and even worst case as not an insult to its powers of creation...

The wager wasn't meant to be an argument for the hypothetical existence of deity in the abstract, it was intended to serve as Christian apologetics to an already culturally Christian audience, for whom the God of the Bible was the only comprehensibly possible God.