tavavex

> Yes, you can create garbage with AI tools. You can create garbage using Blender, Unreal Engine, Unity, GIMP, Ableton, iMovie and Word

Do you not see any difference between creating garbage in these ways?

People have created low-quality things since the dawn of humanity, using all sorts of tools, professional and not. However, before AI, making most types of garbage still required some human work, it wasn't infinitely scalable. And what was automatable ended up being so horrible that most people could easily dismiss it on the spot, or for them to even be filtered out algorithmically. On the internet, it wasn't perfect, but the signal-to-noise ratio was still at a level where you reliably discern the signal part.

AI changed this. Even a beginner can set one up to run almost fully unattended - and while what comes out won't be good, it also won't be immediately apparent as such, especially to the general public. More and more I find myself being fooled by a website link, a YouTube video thumbnail or a paragraph in an article. AI lets people create garbage that can impersonate real effort decently well, and they've used that to great extents. As we speak, thousands of agents are working day and night to pump every online platform with their 'content', without a single person in the world to care about what they put out. They're taking over and removing any good signal we had, everything becomes diluted with trash on a scale we have never seen. People notice that. Many are clueless about AI, and social influence plays a role, but they're not being misled and have their opinions manipulated. They wouldn't enjoy most of this content regardless.

In addition to the dilution of good information, they care about appearances and how AI lets you create an appearance of caring about something. The cheap food stand seemed honest when they put up an unassuming print of a simple Word document, and now seems dishonest when they put up an AI-generated mess that looks nothing like the real product and desperately tries to seem more refined than they are. Their manager was at least honest when he replied with a lazy 'k', and now he's lying about caring by dumping out a bullet point list of AI-generated text for a response that we know he himself hasn't read. It's the dream product for scammers, grifters and people who simply don't care.

Can you use AI to help create something good? Sure, but anyone doing that still needs to take their time and put care into it. Even if AI makes them faster, by the time they finish, 10TB of more slop has already been produced to drown them out, because that can be fully automated. Effectively 99.9% of AI content ends up being garbage, so of course people are going to reject it. Most probably don't want the few nuggets of gold for the ocean of waste.

You know what else will lead to us not getting your cures or space travel? Fully automating enough people such that there are no longer enough jobs in society to do for the majority. That would create a destitute underclass that can never get employed and earn anything to survive, and a tiny elite class that can truly live and afford a fully automated lifestyle, space travel, etc. We are well on track to making this happen within this century. The only way to avoid this is to share some of the value of removing people's jobs with the people it displaced. People doing delivery work are already at jobs of last resort, how do you think "sucks to suck" fares for them as an argument towards removing their livelihood?

Ludditism is not 'a disease', how dehumanizing. It's an expected response. If we did anything towards sharing the profits, it would not exist. If we answered the hard question of "how will a person survive if we permanently cut the number of all jobs in half?", it would not exist. Ludditism for the people being made irrelevant is stepping out of the oncoming train instead of proudly letting yourself be run over to take one for the team so maybe in a few decades' time some of the added value of new automation cancels out the job loss (how it was in the past - and that was when automated jobs still required loads of brand new workers).

> So what's their selling point then?

Same one as almost every other modern tech company. AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI

> company-wide ‘re-interviews’ that would have forced employees to explain how they are using AI, with the clear intention that they may be fired if not using it enough in the eyes of Proton leadership

This is evil in ways most people probably don't understand. To explain, here is the real message behind this, stripped of neutral journalism language. I'm not going to be shocked if this is the actual hidden thought process.

"Hello. You have now worked at our company for 7 years, contributing thousands of hours of work towards making our products better. We regret to inform you that you are worthless. Your so-called 'contributions' don't deserve to be printed on toilet paper our CEO wipes with. Frankly, you are a waste of space sucking up the air inside our offices, and we are itching to get rid of degenerates like you at the first opportunity. Your only chance to temporarily offset our perception of your uselessness is our upcoming 20-minute degradation ritual where you'll dance to our whims and plead by showing how much you love using whatever our CEO says you'll use. Building good solutions, knowing our tech stack, working with other people, being creative? All worthless, just like you. What really matters is if you can make me feel good. Fuck you and get ready to crawl on your knees."

No matter what your opinion on determinism is, the point I made that what OP is doing is very unlike a predictable and deterministic factory game still stands.

But beside that, I don't think that LLM non-determinism is really the same thing as what you see in engineering. Engineering has things like tolerances and redundancy, and while they accommodate random events, they're known, estimated and expected. They also deal with external factors, not the potential of shoddy engineering in the same system they're working on. The best way I can compare it is building a bridge that can withstand twice the normal expected full load and with enough structural redundancy to not collapse even after a prolonged lack of maintenance. These things account for many types of natural degradation and edge cases that are expected. And then there's building a bridge that you know will collapse in the next 10 years at a completely random moment, and instead of engineering a more robust solution, tacking on more gadgets to make the collapse less bad - automatic gates that close the entrances to the bridge, lake drainage system that will suck out the debris, a drone system that drops a brand new randomized bridge on the same spot, and so on. It doesn't feel very much like engineering.

If that doesn't sound convincing to you, consider one other thing. If you gave an engineer a non-deterministic solution and a deterministic solution to the exact same problem, which do you think they would prefer? Would they willingly remove determinism from a system? Maybe it's not the chaos of the real world that scares software developers so much - lots of them have to work on systems that directly interact with the real world. What if it's the fact that there is now a fight to take away their nice, understandable, satisfying deterministic solutions and inject probabilistic chaos into things that never had to have it in the first place - into absolutely everything?

Unless you watch lower-quality content that tries to heavily pad for time or contains a lot of unnecessary content (such as tutorials where only 1 minute in the video matters and contains what you're actually looking for), summarizing 20 minutes of information into 5 bullet points feels like watching a movie or reading a book by skimming the synopsis section on Wikipedia.

Not really, they're not ripoffs. Maybe loosely inspired, but besides the hexes and the theme, they look to be mechanically different. The board game is a competitive versus game, not a set of puzzles; it has varying numbers of voters per hex; the game board is of a preset shape and not freeform.

The game in the post is basically identical to Gerrymandle, they're far more similar to one another than either game is to what you've posted.

Really? So I can ditch Minefraft for Infiniminer and get an identical experience? Same mechanics, items, bosses, worlds, achievements, structures and all?

Or are you perhaps using a game that was merely inspired by another concept but expanded on it in brand new ways to defend a game that is literally identical to what it's copying?

You can get a feel of the state of the software industry through the replies to this comment. Specifically, the countless times people counter with "Oh, well everything is a copy of everything", citing some X that's just like Y. Except X is merely inspired by Y and in reality has far more original ideas that make it completely different. In this case this is a literal carbon copy, and people are automatically rushing to defend it. When the 'vibecoders copying indie games 1-for-1 and reselling them on Steam' debacle happened, these people probably wanted to congratulate the ripoff makers for their good business sense and brilliant use of AI.

It's 66% now. But that only makes my point stronger - why is a shovel-selling company that has been doing so well (at least as far as finance is concerned) having a one-day wipeout like this on relatively mundane news?

Seems that most articles agree that if you look at just the fundamentals, the only thing that was bad that Intel reported was that they're promising less profit next quarter than expected. Despite their server division booming, the PC crisis is holding them back a bit. But I don't know if this is a reason why it would drop this much, maybe companies are using this to price in them vastly overestimating Intel earlier this year or fears about the future of its AI division.

I'm no economist or investor, but down 28% in a day seems insane for a company at this scale. And they didn't even perform badly, imagine what would happen if they missed their earnings projections.

No offense, but this feels like the most un-Factorio thing imaginable.

In factory building games, the systems in play can be understood and are fully deterministic. You're given a set of tools and a problem, and then craft together a solution. Your reward isn't just seeing the item you want on a conveyor belt, but looking at the factory you built ticking like clockwork.

What you're describing is beating out endless nondeterministic fires. It's like you were forced to play Factorio exclusively through an algorithm that designs incomprehensible factories that don't work sometimes, but designs them much faster than you ever could. So you click the magic button and see a mass of buildings appear in front of you. They may work perfectly fine, but if they don't, you need to use the same statistical factory estimator to build an in-game factory fixer mechanism and factory tester mechanism. And then a few updates later the factory fixer breaks so you need to deploy a factory fixer fixer, and a belt clean-up machine, and so on ad infinitum. To me this doesn't seem satisfying in the slightest.

He was shot ten times. This was no accidental discharge. He wanted to kill him.

> Maybe don't start physical alterations with the police when you're armed?

A masterstroke of weasel word craftsmanship, it almost helps you get away with the fact the "physical altercation" means 'getting beaten to the ground after barely getting in the way', and "armed" means 'unarmed' as they pulled his gun from him before the killing. They had him pinned down to the ground, and then decided that summary execution sounded about right.

Highlighting the hypocrisy? Even if we assumed both things are equally bad (an opinion I will never understand), it doesn't change the fact of the different treatment whatsoever.