rng_civ

There are various techniques to do this. The most prominent one IMO is from the folks at Blender [0] using geometry nodes. A Kuwahara filter is also "good enough" for most people.

> When dealing with a stylised 3D renderer, what would the ideal "mesh editor" and "scenery editor" programs look like? Do those assets need to have a physically-correct 3D surface and 3D armature, or could they be defined in a more vague, abstract way?

Haven't used anything else but Blender + Rigify + shape keys + some driver magic is more than sufficient for my needs. Texturing in Blender is annoying but tolerable as a hobbyist. For more NPR control, maybe DillonGoo Studio's fork would be better [1]

> Would it be possible to render retro pixel art from a simple 3D model? If so, could we use this to make a procedurally-generated 2D game?

I've done it before by rending my animations/models at a low resolution and calling it a day. Results are decent but takes some trial and error. IIRC, some folks have put in more legwork with fancy post-processing to eliminate things like pixel flickering but can't find any links right now.

> We wish to establish type soundness in such a setting, where there are two languages making foreign calls to one another. In particular, we want a notion of convertibility, that a type τA from language A is convertible to a type τB from language B, which we will write τA ∼ τB , such that conversions between these types maintain type soundness (dynamically or statically) of the overall system

> ...the languages will be translated to a common target. We do this using a realizability model, that is, by up a logical relation indexed by source types but inhabited by target terms that behave as dictated by source types. The conversions τA ∼ τB that should be allowed, are the ones implemented by target-level translations that convert terms that semantically behave like τA to terms that semantically behave like τB (and vice versa)

I've toyed with this approach to formalize the FFI for TypeScript and Pyret and it seemed to work pretty well. It might get messier with Rust because you would probably need to integrate the Stacked/Tree Borrows model into the common target.

But if you can restrict the exposed FFI as a Rust-sublanguage without borrows, maybe you wouldn't need to.

April Fools' Day is actually a super important defense against rogue AI and the Singularity. Think about it: our ancestors had the forethought to coordinate the largest data poisoning attack in history for hundreds of years. Why? To seed enough nonsense in our historical records so that any rogue AI would short-circuit itself into babbling nonsense.

Why do you think it took so long for AGIs like ChatGPT to emerge? Did you really think the AI winter in the 80s and 90s was a "coincidence"? That there were deep architectural and philosophical issues with the approach? Baloney. Without April Fools' Day, we would have become slaves to the Matrix by the late 90s, if not earlier.

Don't believe me? Well, here's proof that AI could have been developed in Medieval Europe by around late 13th century. For being the so-called "Dark Ages", the people of Medieval Europe were incredibly advanced compared to the 21st century, especially when it came to energy production. Get this: by the 11th century, England ALONE had more than 6000 wind and water turbines (Epstein 199) that they all built BY HAND. This allowed them to fine-tune the turbines to their unique environments, making them 100% more efficient than modern, mass produced metal junk.

Do you know what's even more amazing? Our ancestors knew about gravity and exploited it for power generation! What!!! We had a source of unlimited power by the mid-13th century (Epstein 208)!! But no: in the current age, we can't even muster the political power to make gravity-based perpetual motion machines because all of the physicists would whine about breaking Thermodynamics' laws. Well, screw Thermodynamics! Bastard is holding back all of humanity for personal profit by siphoning all of our hard-earned tax dollars towards solar and nuclear power. Gravity is where it's at!!

But I digress: back to AI in the 13th century Medieval Europe. So they had unlimited energy: how could they turn that into useful computations, like calculating SHA-256 hashes with k leading 0s? They had neither electricity nor silicon, or are there more truth bombs to be dropped? In this case, my dear reader, you would be correct to be sceptical. They didn't have any of that: what they DID have was grit, spit, and a whole lot of wooded land. Contrary to popular belief, they DID have computers back then, but they were based on flowing water instead of flowing electrons. They started out as simple time-keepers (Epstein 207), but eventually, medieval scholars (mostly Italian monks) starting seeing the connections between flowing water and logic gates (see [1] for how it would have worked).

So they had the energy and they had the computational ability: why didn't AI take over the world in 13th century Medieval Europe? Simply put: the power of Mother Nature. While our ancestors built computers, they were necessarily made out of a combination of wood and iron, both of which don't fare well when in contact with water. So when Medieval People discovered that their AI was Rampant, their solution was to confound it with April Fools' Day nonsense, so that by the time the AI returned to thinking about world domination, its computational structures would already be half-rotten and rusted. This is also why there is scant evidence of these water-based computers: if they were not purposefully destroyed, they would have been by time, as Medieval Europeans had the foresight to abandon all AI research in favor of just thinking. (Coincidentally, the lessons learned from early medieval computers would be taken to heart by the shipwrights and directly contributed to Europe's dominance during the Age of Sail).

So the next time you complain about April Fools' Day, just remember that it has saved society for hundreds of years. It is one of humanity's ultimate defenses against the Matrix, and if you truly care about your loved ones, you would contribute to it. I know I will.

Originally written as Latex in Microsoft Word 2003.

* [0] Epstein, Steven A. An Economic and Social History of Later Medieval Europe, 1000-1500. Cambridge University Press, 2009.

> capable of at-least C++ "constexpr"-style compile-time computation, which shouldn't even be possible if one presumes GPT is "just" a giant database storing only multidimensional word similarity scores and sequence distribution from text inference

I don't see how being a giant word-DB necessarily disqualifies compile-time computation. You can view computation as applying a series of term rewrite rules to an input until some sort of termination condition (or indefinite loop). In the case of these AI, the input is the prompt and predicting the next token is a limited form of term rewriting (where the rules are probabilistic and based off the network), and because code and explanations were probably included in the training data, it seems reasonable to me that the "rewrite rules" of Python bled a little bit into the AI.

It makes me insanely curious about the internal structures though. I gave that site 2 similar examples: one produces a correct explanation while another produces an incorrect explanation. The difference: a deleted line of insignificant whitespace

Assuming your WASM sandbox is airtight, that would work. But there are still ways to break out or cause damage because within the sandbox, its like a flat address space with 0 modern protections like ASLR, stack canaries, page protection, etc. (unless you manually compile it in yourself). See [0]