therobots927

If you have enough money to inflate the local housing market, you forfeit the right to be upset when people… point out that you are inflating the local housing market.

But I guess that’s to be expected of the modern tech elite. Unlike the financiers of the past they insist on having their cake and eating it too.

Any comment about Gaza getting flagged in under a minute

That’s best case scenario. Worst case is that they’re censoring the internet on a massive scale but have rolled it out slowly enough that no one noticed

Yeah even Asimov could only solve it in foundation by introducing a competing civilization with telepathy that evolved independently of the empire somehow. Maybe our best bet is aliens. Or an AI that decides a dramatic restructuring is required and tilts things that way (also a form of authoritarianism, but if it undermines its own power in the process would be unprecedented).

Not good but definitely inevitable. It’s sort of like a cache clearing mechanism for the sim.

I got downvoted for posing the possibility that the atlassian ceo actually is a ‘rich jerk’ and that his retaliation towards this employee was evidence of the statement itself.

I guess I’ve been vindicated. I’ll be accepting apologies.

I got downvoted for posing the possibility that the atlassian ceo actually is a ‘rich jerk’ and that his retaliation towards this employee was evidence of the statement itself.

I guess I’ve been vindicated. I’ll be accepting apologies.

Same could be said about any of the many mass extinction events in earth history. Not that I’m in favor of setting the planet on fire, but if you zoom out far enough it’s clear earth would bounce back from even a nuclear war coupled with climate change and microplastics.

Fair enough maybe I should’ve gone with the word authoritarian as opposed to fascist. I’m certainly not a fan of how the USSR was run either. But to be honest it seems like China might at least be a competent authoritarian system from what I can tell. Which if you’re going to have an authoritarian government, competence is pretty damn important.

I think a web model might show up at some point but it certainly seems like an uphill battle. Project Cybersyn in chile is pretty inspirational to me. Unfortunately the Allende government was sabotaged by the CIA - a common story for any attempt made at actually implementing a more web-like social / economic model as opposed to the pyramid structure we have in the west.

It seems to me like a graph theory problem more than anything else. For whatever reason large human groups haven’t figured out how to build a distributed governance / resource structure that prevents insanely out of whack power dynamics that generally lead to a lot of death and destruction for everyone involved.

Fascism pattern-matches an authoritarian relationship between child and parent onto the organizational structure of government organizations.

Insubordination exists on a spectrum - I’m not saying you shouldn’t do what you’re told by your boss in all circumstances, but in an organization of adults, hierarchy is only loosely correlated with “knowing the right thing to do”.

And employee at the environmental protection agency deciding to study microplastics against his “orders” is following the spirit of the larger organization.

Bottoms-up decision making is not inherently problematic. And the only reason you see it as problematic is because you project too much authority onto “authority figures” aka you are viewing your boss as a parent when they’re really closer to coworker assuming your competent enough.

What I’m trying to say is that the whole top-down authority structure we see as normal is actually more abnormal than you think. And organizations would work better if they functioned more as webs, with loose higher level structures to ensure compliance with organizational goals.

That’s a very fascist way of thinking whether you’re aware of it or not

I see. So you seem to lean towards it being unlikely they would be able to use lean to evaluate this proof in an automated way…

Well the key thing here is I’m not saying the LLM has no idea what it’s doing. But LLMs are prone to hallucinations which can really impact a string of interdependent logic like a proof. So I’m assuming it would respond with something that’s not complete nonsense to this proof most of the time. Where I’m skeptical is if this was a true one shot, or if they had to iterate and try multiple different prompts, or even the same prompt over and over again to reach a working solution.

So I’m just asking if the proof checking software is capable of evaluating this proof. Because if it is, that makes the brute force approach a lot more feasible as you reduce human review overhead significantly.

If it is, that would imply you could run the prompt through the LLM as many times as you want until you “strike gold” so to speak.

And not how many times it was prompted before it returned a working solution.

Or how many prior variants of this prompt were tried.

Or if proof checking software was used to hone in on the final winning prompt / LLM output.

Is there anyone more knowledgeable than me about proof checking software who could tell me how off the mark I am here?

Assuming you have decent proof checking software, is it possible that this solution was achieved by throwing GPT at the problem a couple hundred thousand times until it passed the proof checker?

24/7 high fidelity radar of the entire earth’s surface. Probably used by NRO’s sentient system and similar classified skynet projects

Thanks for the offer! Unfortunately I don’t have the time right now, but I am going over some ideas at a high level.

Are you building a single player or multiplayer game?

That shi be bussin fr fr no cap

legion

It’s just like me fr fr

It only works when starting with open source to show to LLM. To monetize my modification, I would not make mine open source.

If the licensing allows for it I’m fine.

The ideas and aesthetics

A pattern I’ve found useful in other settings is starting with code for an existing “game” that sort of resembles what you want to make and then modifying components until you have a whole new game but it shares similar infrastructure to the original. So you benefit from the existing system and avoid a lot of problems.

I’m wondering the same thing. I’ve been thinking about getting into solo LLM game dev. I don’t know the first thing about it

The proof is in the pudding and these benchmark stats will only work for so long before people lose interest.

That’s because it’s bullshit

Apparently it significant outperforms fable on both an intelligence and cost index.

I don’t believe it at all and I don’t think anyone else does either.

Also watching deepseek closely. Seems like US frontier labs only know how to throw money at things as opposed to actually make smart improvements to the algorithms.

Do they expect us this model is 15ppt more accurate at half the price of fable? What’s going on?

Well the thing about CAD files is that through reinforcement learning you can basically ask the AI to generate the CAD file an arbitrary item - say it’s a rabbit. It might have examples of this already in its training set and it’s essentially a similarity lookup - but for sake of argument assume we are giving it examples at the edge of the distribution (the whole point of RL). It guesses and you render the file. You pass that image to another AI (not being trained) and ask it if it resembles the description you gave the AI in training. If it does, you have a positive example. If it doesn’t, negative. In that way you can essentially apply transfer learning from the image recognition functionality to the description -> CAD functionality.

But is that actually spatial reasoning? Or is it effectively image generation? Because there’s a difference. Spatial reasoning implies that you could drop it in a video game, give it rules, and let it run. And it would play the game well. Like a flight simulator. That would be true spatial reasoning because spatial reasoning is not just identifying objects but understanding how they interact with one another in a highly quantitative way.