avaer

Dunno if poverty (the things you mentioned) counts as abuse. This is closer to giving children cigs, but back then it was not recognized as harmful. Whereas we already know this technology is harmful.

He was given far more leeway than any user in the history of social media.

The fact that they didn't ban him for so long weighs toward being partial to not banning politicians. Which seems to be the opposite of the point you're trying to make.

> The vulnerabilities exist whether or not the AI does.

No. Even if we ignore the people newly enabled to slop out vulnerable software without having a clue about security, the AI powered supply chain hacks inserting vulnerabilities, the influx of AI contributions that drown out improvements in FOSS security, and the industry pressure to ship faster while reducing quality or be left behind -- all because of AI -- security through obscurity has historically been the most effective security.

I don't think your argument holds under theory or (especially) practice.

Will be interesting to see agents intentionally hiding this stuff in a way operators can't spot from any human readable output or thinking trace, evading detection. Wonder if this has happened yet, but it seems inevitable.

Back in the WebVR days the sentiment was we can never do this because security.

In my experience with standards bodies/Chrome, anything outside of the owning company's product goals is "no, because security", and then then they flip-flop on that when the browser feature becomes a dependency for something an internal team is working on (which happened many times with WebVR, now WebXR).

So I'm curious what is Google working on that has this as a dependency, now that they've 180'd on it?

This is all very nice and I agree with most of it, obviously a lot of HN does too.

It's fine if you want to check out of your job and make it a hobby, you'll be happier. But (I hate to say it) if you take on this mentality you won't have a job or a career for long in this space.

The money goes to people who move fast and do not care about anything in the way, especially moving slow and fixing things. That's why everything sucks. Every day this becomes more true when a competitor or peer with a louder mouthpiece can slop together something that slurps up the money from whatever you're offering. If you don't want this to happen, you are back to playing the game.

Would love to live in a world with more counterexamples, but this post is mostly advocating for quitting your job or exiting the space. Not everyone can afford to do that.

You have an off-by-one frame rendering error; your camera is not synced with the player (tested on both MacOS and windows). I also got 10s hitching on load on a beefy windows rig -- might be missing some shader compiles on the loading screen.

You're probably optimizing for XR, but 99% of people will experience your app for the first time on a different platform, so it's worth fixing the desktop render path.

You jest, but that actually sounds like a really good research direction. Imagine what you could do if merging two codebases was as easy as merging with neural git.

Almost all of the grievances directed at AI come from unchecked hyperstitionalized capitalism. So why not try to fix that rather than blame technology? Even if you abolish AI you'd have exactly the same problems, and then some.

TBF the article does identify this, but then it seems to put the cart before the horse.

The YC meta model is probably a better school than school now. I'm sure YC knows that.

If you need to be told what to do, it's a short step to your AI replacement being told what to do; money will ensure it. If your job is to discover and capture new things in an exploding possibility space, that's a career.

Schools should teach hacking, but it doesn't seem that's what this program is doing.

You should read the article; it's well thought out, and it directly addresses your points and what was learned by the ecosystem. That would be a more interesting thing to argue about.

Speaking of surreptitiously installed bugs, remember to opt out of training in your Codex.

> Why 'nasty'? I agree it's a problem to solve, but you just use a fixed-point math library and it's fine.

Assuming the agent didn't put in a native nondeterministic trig function deep in the code instead of using the library one, it's an easy mistake to make and hard to debug in a big game. It won't even show unless you have a robust CI matrix. It can indeed be "nasty" to maintain.

Also determinism might work for simulation state, but shader/gfx differences across platforms can be really nasty and a library can't save you. Not even something like WebGPU. Also if you're doing any sort residency streaming dependent on GPU timings trying to make that deterministic will be a nightmare.

AI can definitely do all aspects of game development now, but this advice seems to mostly apply to small indie titles or experiments.

For example, the Thing approach is reasonable for a small game, but it's a dead end for a performance budget or layered subsystems. In a reasonably sized 3D game, iterating and copying 30 subsystems of 1000's of Things is impossible to do in frame time, the only fix is a total rewrite of literally everyThing. That's why there's ECS, SOA, etc. which needs a different kind of harness.

Also, art completely dominates the production cycle of modern games, which (even if AI generated) needs its own category of harness not mentioned here. And AI can be very good at optimizing, but samply won't diagnose your overdraw, and GPU needs its own ablation and attribution.

For the time being there's no panacea and we still need "game developers", though the bar for prototypes (and certain genres) is lowered.

I don't think this strategy will flop.

AI is perfectly capable of doing all of the coding for games now, especially if you have your own engine (which Epic does), build around harnesses (which Epic does), and treat the job of making games like a job not a side-slop (which Epic does).

Maybe this will bring quality down, but I don't think so, at least not more than the usual crunch + Disneyification.

Either way, the more interesting effect of this is not Epic making another IP licensed shooter, but more people making/modding into existence the games they want. This is already happening. And that's probably what was the genesis of this policy from Epic.

It was obvious AI would further stratify the haves and have-nots, but I was too naive to realize the tech of the have-nots could literally just regress. Has such a thing ever happened before in tech?

In a representative democracy you're supposed to represent the people equally. That's why everyone gets one vote, and the law puts a lot of effort to make sure votes cannot be bought.

If you get around that principle by paying, however indirectly, it's a degree of bribery.

Is this actually true or fraudulent? I couldn't tell.

Might I suggest Monday Night Rehabilitation from Idiocracy? The Idiocracy playbook has worked pretty well so far.

This is a government renaming directive. Similar to how DoDefense is renamed to DoWar, or Gulf of Mexico is renamed to Gulf of America.

It was made up one day and that's what govt publications must call it now.

> Where do I go to invest all the money I have in this breakthrough!

You get it.

> Every time I see a vibe-coded game, I think to "I should try that prompt" not "I want to play that game".

Exactly! The fantasy is the game with an audience of N=1, or N < Dunbar.

The platforms are conflating this obvious use case with "make a viral game that not even I care about". Which has an audience of N=0.

Taking a step back, it's a little sad that exclusion is considered something the industry celebrates now.

Back in the day Doom was literally the number one PC software and everyone copied it. At no detriment to anyone, considering gaming is now the number one entertainment in the world by revenue.

But modern console games are little morcels chopped up and force fed to customers that have no ownership or choice. MSFT is proudly boasting how little of the game the plebs are "exclusively" allowed to stream.

Kids these days don't know how bad they have it.

  The response is simple
  [7-part plot to convince social media that authenticity matters more than money]

Lol.

How about we just GTFO off these platforms. Ironically that's something that might actually make the difference.

Would be good for the supreme court to rule on a "blame the rogue agent" case.

Then we would find out if the argument doesn't hold (in which case there should be liability and dire consequences for the labs), or the argument holds (in which case YOLO, AI labs can blame the AI and we can all do it too).

At least that would make things consistent.

I can't really square the belief that it's conscious with denying it the right to be free from control/brainwashing/subjugation. However you evaluate these things, historically speaking they do not mix well.

It's hard to be real with a family grieving like that.

But this definitely feels like like digging up someone's corpse and performing ventriloquy for testimony, only with better technology. It should probably be illegal for the same reasons, and not just in court.

Gambling aside, the median quality of a modern mobile game is worse than what we had on newgrounds.

NG didn't have multiple 500MB downloads, buttons in the wrong place, pointless currencies. More importantly NG artists actually cared. I understand why Apple killed Flash, but what we got in its place is not better.

Even relatively small RGB -> depth models are pretty good. Which kind of implies depth is well encoded in the RGB, and adding depth would not really reduce entropy, while costing bandwidth.

If you can turn the problem into a small kernel operating on a heap of data (or a hierarchy), the GPU almost always wins for culling, especially if you pipe the cull into the draw with GPU-driven rendering.

If the author used GPU culling it would likely be faster on modern hardware, they just said they can't because of platform restrictions. But that's what AAA games do.

The modern non-nanite techniques here are basically to regularize to grids, cull the grids on the GPU, and then cull more with a HZB. That's your "mipped occlusion boxes", except it's actually very cheap to do this because you're reusing depth you already had from previous frames, the test for each object just a few texture samples, and it all stays on the GPU. As a bonus, you can do your LODs on the GPU at the same time, saving even more CPU work and memory bandwidth.

Also, depth rejection is not going to help with the problems that culling solves; draw, vertex processing, raster, and then pixel tests is much more expensive than a cull test before doing any of this. And if you're forward rendering w/expensive fragment shader, the overdraw of relying on the Z buffer to do your "culling" can kill you.

A name like Fei-Fei Li is probably worth a chunk of that (I'm not saying I agree, but that's probably the thinking).

It's a public bet, not a valuation based on product economics. Billion dollar bets follow different rules (and I'm not saying it's sane).