martindbp

Capitalist techbros didn't force anyone to do anything. You need to take responsibility for your own life.

What they are seeing is insane user and revenue growth. It's that simple. ChatGPT has like a billion users, and it came out 3 years ago. And then AI is getting better every year in a way that internet companies like Google or Facebook didn't. Google peaked very early in terms of usefulness, then it just spent decades monetizing it. AI is not even funded by ads, people are actually paying for it. It's really hard to get people to pay for something. I don't know if the investors will get a nice return, but given the numbers they're seeing I understand why they're doing it.

I almost get an existential crisis from the fact that this was written by someone in their early 20s

So what you're saying is we should put them on the moon?

What's different is that Meta has sold 20+ million headsets, and there is a decent sized user base, albeit much smaller than people expected 5 years ago. This is not a dead technology just because you don't use it. In 2023 Meta Quest had roughly 6.3 million monthly active users.

According to this, 1.63% of Steam MAU have a VR headset which translates to roughly 2 million MAU: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw...

So, in some sense not a lot, but it has a decent foothold of people using it often. It's clearly different from VR in the past where there were literally a handful or maybe on the order of hundreds of headsets in the world. VR now also has a ton of different niches and use cases beyond games. I also think a comparison with gaming console hardware is more apt than comparing it to something like PC or smartphone sales.

VR is in the trough of disillusionment phase right now, but I can almost guarantee you we'll see a slow but steady climb from here. The big question is if Meta will continue to invest into the space or if other smaller players will fill its place.

If you're allocating stuff every frame you'll run into problems quickly. Sure, you can use an object pool or arena allocator, but then you're basically circumventing GC.

Game dev in general has a much tighter feedback loop than most software. If you're leaking memory, you're doing that a hundred times a second. If your code is slow you get visual stuttering. If you want performant code you need to think about things like cache coherence, you can't use GC etc.

This is exactly how I'd put it, and also why I absolutely hate context switches. When you're asking me to switch context, for example to a different project, then I have to bring in the project structure, the modules the moving pieces, the problem we're trying to solve, everything before I can remember enough to answer your question.

Would like to know as well. Whenever I suggest something new it's a default "NO!". But if it just happens naturally it's ok. Like if I put on a song and suggest he listen to it, my kid will literally scream and cry like I'm torturing him, but if it happens to be on the radio while driving then suddenly it's fine and he'll love it. I think part of the reason is that everything is on demand these days, unlike when we grew up on broadcast tv and radio.

I remember feeling vaguely threatened by interests that I didn't understand growing up. At one point for instance, my friend was really into anime, and I felt like it's too weird, like you'd need to be a very different kind of person to enjoy that kind of thing. Years later I decided to try it though, and still I have a bit of an aversion to a lot of the tropes of most anime, but there are also quite a few gems in there that I would've missed. I'm reminded of this often because it's common that people just have a blanket "I don't watch cartoons" attitude. I try to remember this when I have an aversion to some kind of music, literature, movie or hobby.

We are also all made of atoms, not sure what you're trying to say here. We are different from the other animals on Earth, we are clearly special. That doesn't mean we're chosen by God or anything like that, but I don't see the sense in downplaying humanity either. We may be the only intelligent species capable of science and space flight in the universe for all we know.

Humans bad. I think it's an ideological off-shoot from environmentalism. If you recognize that humans are the cause of environmental issues then we are the problem. If we are the problem, then we should try to discredit our specialness so that we can motivate there being fewer of us (anti-natalism).

Nordics are very capitalist, come and visit

I think that lifestyle is easily achieved by basically anyone, you don't need much money to live that kind of life. The problem is that life is only enjoyable if everyone lives the same life. You could save a ton of money and not have to work much if you lived a 70s lifestyle. Many even long for that lifestyle, but it only works if everyone lives it. If you're the only one living in the 70s and everyone else lives in the 2020s, most people would not be happy. Somehow, enduring things is much easier as a group. I remember talking to a Chinese person who said for most of their youth they spent their days studying until 11pm with breaks for lunch and dinner. That would be hell for most western kids, but apparently they didn't suffer too much because they were studying together with their friends who all had to endure the same schedule.

Yes, nobody is claiming it's inevitable based on nothing, it's based on first principles thinking: economics, incentives, game theory, human psychology. Trying to recast this in terms of "predestination" gives me strong wordcel vibes.

What's missing from the application of the survivorship bias concept is that it really only applies if failure means death or a total wipeout. Pieter Levels for instance, a known success in the indie hacking scene, has created something like 70 projects and only a handful of them made any money. Presumably he also learned something from each project making the success of the next more likely.

Isn't this almost a requirement for getting into some prestigious American universities via selection based on a personal essay? You can't just be like "I had a great childhood in an upper middle-class family with parents who loved me and supported me".

Had no idea .wtf was a thing

Anthropic has done much more in depth research actually introspecting the circuits: https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/bio...

Many people who claim that people don't understand how AI works often have a very simplified view of the short comings of LLMs themselves, e.g. "it's just predicting the next token", "it's just statistics", "stochastic parrot" and seems to be grounded in what AI was 2-3 years ago. Rarely have they actually read the recent research on interpretability. It's clear LLMs are doing more than just pattern matching. They may not think like humans or as well, but it's not k-NN with interpolation.

I think there has always been this type of corruption. The interesting thing this time is how open it is, and how clearly visible it is in the stock market, where who is president results in swings of hundreds of billions of dollars. This includes both Trumps corruption for (and now against Tesla/SpaceX) and Bidens lawfare against his them.

You see this everywhere. In sports its the people who spend most of their time worrying about their equipment instead of just playing the game. I was there with learning Chinese as well, spent way more time thinking about tools than actually learning the language.

The problem is "Greatness Cannot Be Planned". There are not many cases where someone ambitious sets out to make the world a better place in a very direct way, who actually accomplished that, because of deceptive objectives. Nobody would have predicted that something as frivolous as PC gaming would lead to the AI boom we're having now, but it did. In many ways, John Carmack did more good by kickstarting the PC graphics race than any morally ambitious do-gooder has ever done. There is one notable exception, and that is Elon Musk. He attacked two extremely difficult industries head on armed only with $100m and grandiose plans, yet somehow made it work by shear force of will. Difficult to replicate, and of course we all hate him now.

Better probably to do what you find interesting, and maybe it will lead to greatness. If it didn't at least you did something interesting.

> I would _much_ rather live in a nice house in a nice area with exciting things to do from my mid 20's onwards and enjoy those things for years and years and years, rather than live in a smaller/cheaper/farther out place so that I can retire 10 years earlier and start living.

That's a false dichotomy. You can retire at least 25-30 years earlier than normal if you are a bit mindful of your spending and earn a decent salary. That makes the decision a bit harder doesn't it? Be frugal in your 20s and 30s, retire at 35-40 when you still mostly have your health, or so that you can actually focus on your health and increase your health span, and your 60s and 70s might be better than you expect. Whether this is worth it depends on your individual situation, how much do you earn, how painful is it for you to save, is there something you'd be retiring to, not just away from? I also wouldn't trade a life of misery for 10 retired years, but I don't think it's that simple.

They already learn this by being in school, no need for more of such "learning opportunities" in their free time.

I think many adults don't push themselves because they were always pushed by others their entire lives. It's a form of learned helplessness. You never have a say in what to do, so you just do what you're told, nothing more.

Many kids will do difficult stuff, just not the stuff you'd have in mind. Sometimes parents are right in what the kids should be focusing on, but I'd guess more than not they are wrong. For example, all the parents who discouraged heavy computer use or video games, when this is how most millennials came into programming and IT. Then there's the thing where a kid who is interested, obsessed even, learns SO much faster. I recall a story of a parent who wanted their child checked for learning disabilities and the psychologist exclaimed "Your son has memorized 350 Pokemon! It's not a question of learning ability, it's a question of motivation".

In my view, if we let our children do what interests them, to some degree (of course anything taken to the extreme will likely fail, and it depends on the child), they are likely to cover way more territory, and probably more useful territory, than a child that is being forced and coerced. One of the many things my 7 year old has learned from Minecraft is an entire language (English), to a level which in the past (my generation) we didn't reach before perhaps 18 (and that was due to watching TV, not school). The other day I caught him taking notes on a piece of paper that said single = 1, double = 2, triple = 3, quadruple = 4, quintuple = 5, sextuple = 6. This is a child who should not be speaking English, but now he can write and spell it better than his native language, because we let him follow his passion. He's also learned a ton of engineering concepts and vocabulary, and has the ability to install mods, debug when they don't work, has a basic understanding of networking, IP addresses and on and on.

He has no interest in playing an instrument right now, why should we force him? If the time comes and he wants to, he will learn it so much faster because he wants to get better.

I've noticed something about people's reaction to AI. People who view themselves mainly as engineers or craftsmen are threatened by AI, understandably. People who just want to make cool stuff, solve real problems or just have fun are not threatened, but love it.

And I get it, an expert furniture craftsman will not have respect for IKEA furniture, and that's fine. But it means I can affordably furnish a new apartment for $2k instead of $20k. Of course it's even more threatening because there is the risk that the AI will actually do a better job in the future. But people still play Chess and have fun with that, and people enjoy watching Magnus Carlsen play even though he can't beat the AI on a phone.

In the end, we will all have to adapt, and for your own sake I don't think it helps putting your head in the sand and being bitter. Instead of being bitter, try thinking about all the cool stuff you can make now as a one person team.

To be blunt, the current economic value of the humanities is pretty low, just like STEM as developed by humans will be in the future. I think universities may play a role in the future, but more as something people do for fun as a hobby, and not mainly for its superior teaching capability, but for the social experience.