ghostzilla

Which brings the question, if LLMs are an asset of such strategic value, why did China allow the DeepSeek to be released?

I see two possibilities here, either that the CCP is not that all-reaching as we think, or that the value of the technology isn't critical, and that the release was further cleared with the CCP and maybe even timed to come right after Trump's announcement of American AI supremacy.

This seems more like a move designed to frighten China -- or force them to spend money making LLMs -- then an actual threat. The clues are that Trump ceremonially blessed the deal but did not promise money (SoftBank et al will, supposedly), and then Musk said that's all fake because SoftBank doesn't have the money, and Altman countered that Musk should not be butthurt and should put America first. Who does that? I'm thinking, no one who has something real on his hands.

That's interesting, it hasn't occurred to me to check his games. That said, I remember reading that Machiaveli was once given a territory to govern and he was terrible at it, despite The Prince. It may be a thing about teachers vs doers.

THAT said, there is a lot of intersting things one can learn from John Carmack, so there's an exception to every rule.

Another adage is "code should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute". This goes directly against code being written by machines.

I still use ChatGPT for small self-contained functions (e.g. intersection of line and triangle) but mark the inside of the function clearly as chat gpt made and what the prompt was.

Or a pebble; for a super intelligent pebble.

“God sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal, and awakens in man.” ― Ibn Arabi

> You don’t need unit tests if you have integration tests.

Which is why, as per Jim Coplien, most unit testing is waste.

But converting one type of unit tests into another is a perfect showcase for AI-generated code. They could have even kept just the prompts in the source and regenerate the tests on every run, were it not for inaccuracy, temperature, and the high cost of running.

On the internet, no one hears you being subtle. (Torvalds)

I'll add my own view: when you watch a movie, read a book, listen to a song, play a game... you CONNECT with the mind of the person who made it. When there is no mind, or the source is a dead, statistical amalgamation of countless fragments of other minds, there is nothing you'll want to connect to, nothing you'll want to squander precious hours of your life on.

And while you may be curious to see, once maybe, a movie such an imaginary AGI-LLM has created from your prompt, no one else will have the slightest interest in seeing it. And vice versa. Which means there would be absolutely NO MONEY in that market. There would be no market.

Certainly agree with you on that one.

I find it draining to have to be on the lookout constantly for hallucinations, or omissions a person wouldn't make. I imagine as long as I'm walking well known paths -- well known to many but not me -- I'm safe, but the moment I need nuances I can expect that one of those nuances is completely and convincingly made up, except I don't know which one.

> People raving about it on twitter

For the most part usages of GenAI have been sharing output on social media. It is mind-blowingly fascinating, but the utility of it is far far behind.

They probably don't. Forced ad viewing is fundamentally dishonest: they can force the user to watch the ad, but they can't force him to pony up for what is being advertised.

The best description of AGI I've seen is in Michael Crichton's Prey. He describes in a fairly plausible detail how AGI rises from the building blocks. The emotion he captures is that of dealing with a psychopath -- goal oriented with no empathy -- to the infinite degree.

That said, I think ChatGPT and LLMs trick us into seeing intelligence where there is none because we are evolutionarily wired to look for signs of intelligence as a potential threat. Our defense mechanisms are asymmetrical as they have to err on the side of being overly cautious: you may mistake a rock for a bear but you won't mistake a bear for a rock.

So it is with ChatGPT: its conversation style triggers a false alarm deep in us that there is intelligence there and we can't shake that warning off, but this software design is just exploiting the flaw (of sorts) in our wiring.

"What an insult to writers, artists, and game designers! None of them have managed to imbue their works with "unique spirit?"

As someone said, to the extent they have managed to do it -- and many have -- it was not because of engines like unity but despite them. I imagine all those people would have been happier if the engineers had made a custom engine for them (and quick).

About time. What makes a game unique in spirit is its engine.