x-complexity

> It doesn't fulfill its primary purpose of being a (fun) game.

A fun game isn't made when you're working on the engine & tech.

It is only made when everywhere else has been done, & when the feedback mechanisms are tightened. This will never happen in the prototyping stage, because the point is to make the thing exist in the first place.

------

This comment is the same Reddit-style one-off critique that makes no actual sense when placed at the grindstone, made by people that have never actually tried to make one with OR without.

> why do they need someone else's vibe coded stuff?

Because even if vibecoded, the initial work has already been done, and it would be absolutely foolish to outright dismiss it just because it doesn't meet puritanical standards.

> How is any of this serious?

It isn't & shouldn't be. The upfront demand for "serious" is what kills public projects in the first place, where they all come from an experimentation perspective.

There is no public project out there that (from its first commit) was fully serious: Each & every one of them were offshoots & experiments, testing to see if the thing was possible in the first place.

Likely because the ball isn't a single static 3D object. There are likely improvements that can be made on that front by periodically generating the inner layers of the ball as a single asset.

> Japan is great, because they realized that if you stop giving a fuck about public debt you can make a great country happen.

Japan can largely ignore its public debt because its mostly owned by the Japanese themselves, and thus contained within the nation & erodible via inflation.

Most other countries are restricted from doing this due to the massive foreign ownership of national debt, & ending up in hands/firms/governments outside of their nation.

> the issue is that there are no value adds from humans anymore if the LLM is smarter than everyone

The value adds (from the view of humans wanting it) come from:

1) a human understanding concept X & thus can communicate about X; or

2) finding alternate routes to X that make it easier for humans to get there.

(1) is human-centric & thus non-replaceable, since the requirement of a human is what gives it the value add.

(2) is similar to how there can be many paths to deriving the Pythagorean theorem. None of the existing paths devalue the others, but they each allow those with different perspectives to reach the same destination.

Constructors are dedicated language-sanctioned functions that transform (data inputs X) into (type/object Y).

The given X should be subjected to the requirements necessary to create a valid Y. If the requirements fail, you have two main choices: Create an invalid Y, or reject X & return an error in however you want it to be returned.

The former leaks said rejections throughout the rest of the type's/object's code, & makes more work for me to parse through where & how the problem occurs.

The latter option creates a cleaner system altogether, due to rejecting sections of invalid states. Not all will be rejected, but the fact that some do get rejected already makes its workload comparatively lighter than the former.

I know which my lazy bum would pick.

> The worst thing you can do, is to try to gaslight yourself into believing AI has apparently made your life great.

It is make like better. You're just invested in ripping out others' tools for your own satisfaction.

> Maybe even go as far as to ban usage of AI in certain cases, everything should be on the table, the public already hates AI, it just needs to be fanned and directed well.

The difference between this & the backdrop of Dune is near 0, with its issues clearly outlined in the book: You want the system that existed in the 2010s to remain as-is & ossified for your personal enjoyment.

> > But don't you worry, you can make more money overseeing the factory, or selling people on how good this bag is, and explaining that to them.

...Or you can keep working on your handbags & refine your styles & qualities, using your expertise & experience as value adds.

The existence of the factory did not wipe out the boutique craftsman.

> > A craft I enjoy doing has been taken away from me, I should be allowed to mourn, I don't care that I can do something else since I never liked doing it in the first place.

A craft wasn't ripped away from you: The process still exists as-is in its prior form, like the woodcarvers of yesteryear. Nothing that you desire (the process/journey) has been lost. It still exists.

The only step required to restore it is to ignore the contributions of others that use it. And your desire to do so will be valid & consistent.

But similarly as to how you want to be validated on your feelings of 'the craft being ripped from you', you don't get to impose that belief onto others to rip their use of LLMs away from them if they want to do so, lest you want to invalidate their feelings as a consequence.

> Except for the closed SOTA model weights, out of reach hardware, and the resulting $200 subscription rent now paid readily both by anybody trying to create something new, and anybody who wants to rip it off. That particular flavor of rent seeking is booming.

SOTA only provides agents that are easier to manage. Such agents will likely also be made available in open models, as it is primarily a post-training issue.

Even if it never comes, the best open models are already capable of performing these tasks.

> Unless laws are put up quickly to protect IP

Protect IP from what? The fundamentals of the situation have not changed. The only difference now is that the models are doing the work.

Replace 'models' with 'humans', and you get bog-standard RE. The models just accelerated the timeline where this scenario would've happened.

The solution you propose already exists in its primitive form: It's called Section 1201 of the DMCA. What you're asking for extends that protection to the whole program, not just the DRM, and thus killing all of reverse engineering altogether.

------

Copyright as it exists is no different than real estate: Landowners extracting rent from properties they own, in exchange for promises on routine maintenance & upgrades.

What we have now is a machine that can look at a building & remake it to at least 90+% similarity, given enough iterations.

And we're discussing about banning the machine.

> For example, the players may want to wants to mod the game-server with features, bug-fixes, or moderation-tools, while the publisher wants a strict lockdown to their artificial monopoly on "digital goods."

Then the mod must be loaded & run on the server's end, with its logic enforced on all players on that server. The client shouldn't have free reign over the server's internal logic & state.

The one exception to this are visual mods that modify the presentation. But even then I'm skeptical, as modifying the presentation layer can affect the decisions that X makes, or even worse, give them an unfair advantage that other players should also have if X has them.

In defense of the post: In cases where you want flexibility & rapid experimentation, accessible JSON columns give that capability whilst still respecting the table structure of the SQL DB.

When the structure ossifies, converting the structure into its tabular representation makes sense.

------

Every single other comment here shitting on the choices made act as if their commits have always been perfect first try, with no need for modifications or improvements.

When the demands of your target customers constantly shift & have not yet been ossified, the optimizations made early in its process more often than not bite back hard & painful.

> You might have noticed throwing billions around has diminishing returns

This assumes that they're throwing money at the problem, and that said money encounters no leeches in the process.