CooCooCaCha

I think if they did support Apple Pencil they’d have used that as a selling point.

As someone who does coding and art, I’m disappointed that there’s no Apple Pencil support. Makes touch feel more like a gimmick.

Nobody is saying advertisement doesn’t work.

There are reasonable, practical limits to the agent power available to a given person.

If I'm sawing wood I could compare a knife to a handsaw, to an electric saw, to a table saw, to a team of woodworkers, to a factory, etc.

It would be totally reasonable to compare the amount of wood I'm able to saw by hand vs electric or any of the other methods.

You could give the task to a million people but you could also give the task to a million people who each have their own swarm of agents.

I think it makes sense to focus on what one individual can do, and amount of time to do it.

The point of technology is to make people’s lives better.

Out of curiosity, when you take a bite of a burger do you call it a product?

When you watch a movie do you call it content?

I’m glad you mentioned flow state because that’s exactly the high I’m trying to chase with AI and why I like it despite programming since elementary school as well.

I realized I most enjoy higher level problem solving but don’t really enjoy implementation. Like I enjoy algorithms, data structures, memory allocation strategies, SIMD optimization, etc. But writing the code, and debugging it is tedious and takes me out of flow.

And if I’m really interested in the project itself then the algorithms take a back seat and I enjoy the even higher level problem solving of building a cool project.

I don’t think it makes you lesser to enjoy these things more than literally banging out code, and hunting down bugs. Perhaps I’ve written enough code that I don’t find the same joy in that. Who knows.

In these scenarios you’re morally obligated to save the most people. I don’t see why this is complicated at all.

Maybe other people put a lot of emotional weight on the choice itself but as long as I tried to save the most people I’d sleep soundly at night.

Minus the horror of watching people get run over by a trolley of course.

Are these things actually complicated, or is it the case that simplicity feels bad somehow?

The trolley problem is just messy emotionally, not actually complicated. You only have two choices, you pick the one that saves the most lives and that’s the best you can do.

Real housing prices are the most expensive they've been in recent history, but sure it's almost entirely doomscrolling.

Yes they are. People are blaming it almost entirely on scrolling social media.

I’m not arguing that today is the worst time to ever exist in the history of humanity.

I’m arguing there are legitimate reasons why people are exhausted and disillusioned with the current state of the world.

Life has become increasingly expensive. Safety nets that used to be there, aren’t anymore. We’re surrounded by enshittification. Social divides, and antagonism between social groups are high.

Your contempt for humanity is blinding you to real issues people face every day. Yes, some things have gotten better over the years, but some things have gotten a lot worse.

I don’t think it’s as simple as that. It seems like people are increasingly exhausted and disillusioned with life.

What you seem to be implying is people are lazy and choosing TikTok over real relationships. But I also think people choose TikTok because it’s low effort and they don’t have much gas left in the tank.

I was recently working on audio code, and I needed a function that produced a fast approximation of a sine wave. I asked chatgpt about common techniques, did some experiments to figure out the right performance/accuracy tradeoff, and finally asked chatgpt to help me optimize the function to use SIMD instructions.

If this code made it into a game, at what point did I do something wrong?

It’s really not that confusing. The problem is people keep adding stuff to the definition that doesn’t really matter, and twisting it to serve themselves, then calling it confusing.

What really matters are the core aspects of intelligent behavior. Pattern recognition, planning, adaptation, etc.

It really doesn’t matter if an intelligent system is conscious, or how similar it is to commander data, or even how much economically viable work it can do.

Too many people fall into the trap of black and white thinking, as if the only way to use gen AI is to type into ChatGPT "make a fun game that makes loads of money plz."

And the brain is literally only producing electrochemical signals.

I don’t see how tokens can’t produce speech or track metabolic needs. You can talk to chatgpt can’t you? Or do you mean literally talking? Because that’s not a brain function, that’s the mouth, vocal chords, and lungs.

It would be different if AI was known to be reliable but it isn’t, so this is less of a random failure and more a symptom of jagged intelligence.

And with every one of these there’s always an attempt to minimize the problem by saying it’s just one silly failure.

Is being asked to read a clock really a gotcha?

I’ve been learning houdini recently, and I have to agree.

In terms of nodes and simulation, Houdini is still lightyears ahead of blender. I say this as someone who loves blender and views the programs as complementary. But still, I was shocked at how deep Houdini is.

With that said, learning Houdini is an unrelenting gauntlet. Blender isn’t exactly easy to learn but it’s a walk in the park compared to Houdini. Even something as simple as creating a material and assigning it to an object is an exercise in frustration.

That suggests a straightforward mapping between context -> program. Maybe for trivial programs but I don’t see how you can argue that for sufficiently complex programs.

Reasoning models perform better than non-reasoning models because they’re able to refine their code in multiple steps. That allows any part of the program to influence any other part of the program, not just from start -> end.

Human thinking serves a similar purpose. Basically intelligence needs to be able to backtrack if you want better performance.

MIT is simple, open, and common which is a big benefit for indie projects, small studios, and anyone with limited legal resources.

It means there’s lots of info on the internet explaining how to use the license and they can be relatively certain they won’t accidentally fall into some legal trap or misinterpret the license. It also means there’s legal precedent around the license.

All that to say, custom licenses are actually a big issue for small players.

I find this whole conversation baffling. Licenses and contracts are not a replacement for being a decent person.

Because there’s a clear mismatch between the value generated from Box2d vs the value the creator receives, and that’s common for open-source in general.

It would be common decency to donate even a small portion of that $500 million, even if the license technically doesn’t require it.

The root level comment is talking about their general vision of healthcare. We’re talking about ideal goals here.

Whether midjourney helps with those goals or not is a related, but different conversation thread.

The only relevant implication is the word “useful”. Clearly we want useful data, that’s obvious.

Because we’ve been able to spend more and more on the next miniaturization. That does not seem infinitely sustainable or even physically possible to sustain indefinitely.

Capitalism is trending towards uncertainty.

- Job security is getting lower.

- Insurance is getting spotty, will this be covered? Maybe?

- Companies are testing dynamic pricing.

- The rise of prediction markets.

Eventually the economy is going to be constantly gambling on our lives. Every ounce of certainty is a potential money making opportunity.

I bet the API pricing helps pay for search users