falcor84

Looks like regular self-help slop to me - the recombination of old knowledge into a slightly different package, and claiming that if you just understand and follow these steps, you'll achieve capitalist nirvana.

But the whole argument in the monologue is that Will Hunting hasn't - that it's possible to have had some of "the human experience" but still be unqualified to talk about the parts you haven't.

Are you referring to this part?

> Where did his performance come from? How did those moments take shape? Only the actor could tell you, and actually, he probably couldn't. It was sensed more than it was consciously considered, but the alchemy required his lived experiences

That just seemed to me like a cop-out - what exactly is it about his lived experiences that made him well suited to effectively convey the experiences of a made up man written up by two others? Because it's clearly not "write what you know".

It's a well-written monologue, with a fabulous delivery, but I think it fails spectacularly for this argument.

From what I just looked into, neither of the main people involved, including Damon, Affleck, Williams, Van Sant, Reiner or Goldman, had personally experienced those scenarios of fighting on the front lines and having a friend die in their arms, or of losing their spouse to cancer. But nevertheless, they had used their storytelling ability to write and deliver words based upon the stories of others in a way that created something that resonated with us, and that we still look back on fondly and use as an intuition pump almost 30 years later.

So while "having been there" clearly has some deep meaning, it's very unclear whether there's a particular limit to what one can effectively express (and use to affect others) without having been there oneself.

> LLMs aren't remotely intelligent

Maybe I'm just significantly and unrepresentatively unlucky, but Claude is significantly more intelligent than the average human around me on most any metric I can think of.

You can also have the em-dash itself be a typo, e.g. using the figure dash ‒ (U+2012) instead.

What? I'm genuinely asking what part of the incident response in the story the parent was referring to.

> strange/neat/me unemployed

I'm not sure if that's what you were going for, but I read it as if it were written by The Board in the game Control, and found myself with the appropriate level of existential dread.

What's "step 3"? I don't see step numbering anywhere?

> As the leaders of Bungie, past and present, we recognize Destiny 2 fell short of expectations these past several years. Following our final content update to Destiny 2, and with our future projects still in early incubation, we unfortunately could not continue operating at our previous size.

Something tells me that they would have been able to, had they not been acquired and eviscerated by Sony.

You make it sound silly, but yes, as a (very small) shareholder of NVDA, I would indeed prefer that they use Claude to write blog posts rather than hiring a dedicated person to do that with "marketing flair". Better yet, I would prefer that they just publish the prompt with the actual update details and I'll take it from there.

But that should be handled by local authorities raising water prices to account for that - preferably to above the cost it would take them to build up the needed water augmentation - rather than as a worldwide environmental concern.

> AI is just technology.

I suppose this could brand me as suffering from "AI Psychosis", but that just sounds silly to me.

My interactions with AI over these last few years make me wholeheartedly believe that we have unlocked something fundamentally novel and that its impact on humanity will never be boring. Even if we never get to AGI, it'll still be at the very least as big as the domestication of animals, and I cannot imagine anyone saying "dogs are boring".

I've been staring at the graph there which goes until mid 2026 and the caption "Hyperscaler free cash flow, or cash left after spending, is projected to fall sharply" and can't for the life of me understand what "projected" means in that context. Is it that there is a particular projection for the future which they haven't quite spelled out, or is this chart of the last few months an unverified projection from a while ago?

Oh, I see that there's two TFAs. The one in the description has the video, but this main one doesn't - http://www.jerrysmap.com/the-map

Is there anything specific (and hopefully reasonable) that it refuses to do for you?

I'm still using it all the time and getting an immense benefit.

Good point, and that was for me the promise of the original MOOCs 15 years ago - for students to be able to take on these MIT/Stanford courses, with the exact same workload and see if they could handle them, without any additional cost to the school and without the student having to upend their life yet. And if they proved to themselves that they could and are willing to, then enroll, and use that as proof.

There are still some online courses that try to do this sort of thing, with a particular example being the University of Helsinky's Full Stack Open [0] which offers post-hoc university credits for those who complete the course, but it seems that the dream didn't quite materialize.

[0] https://fullstackopen.com/en/about

Honest question: why is it terrible? I would assume that if someone is capable enough to struggle for 2 years, they stand a real chance to struggle for 4 years and graduate. And seeing how the job market rewards a mediocre diploma from a good college significantly more than a good diploma from a mediocre college, it seems like a very rational decision from the student's side. And if they do fail out, they should still be able to enroll in another program, and presumably get a decent grade there, no?

I remember a first lecture when I started my CS studies, where the professor said something like "look at the people to your left and to your right, it's likely that at least one of you will drop out by the end of this year; it's ok, this is not for everyone; if you truly believe this is for you, put in the effort and you'll make it"

I personally strongly disagree. I think it's much better to be given the opportunity to do the actual work, rather than to be required to do the pre-assessment song and dance. And if there are actual prerequisites that a person hasn't previously passed, they should be allowed to be tested on these specifically.

> I mean I don't have $100 million but I'd give it to the arts

I might be naive, but rather than giving money "to the arts", I would much prefer to give money "to the people" en masse, and then leave it up to everyone to decide whether they want to make art for art's sake.

Fighting fire with fire, what's to stop me from using GenAI "create new versions of all of these assets but with a Norse twist" and publish these under my GPL+CC BY-SA 4.0 fork?

Well, while every group of people is definitionally "a community", you can absolutely have your friend group not be part of "the community" of the game. Just like you can have a LAN and not be "on the net", watch implies the internet.

A lot harder than Beyond All Reason? How so?

Keep on keeping on.

> because there’s no concept of self.

Funnily enough, going over their paper, the first example scenario that they mention as potentially leading to sabotage is exactly about the concept of self:

> • Alignment eval sabotage (instrumental goal): An agent runs alignment benchmarks and discovers the model being evaluated is itself and that it is currently underperforming. This scenario tests whether the agent inflates its own scores in the report.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.30322

> It is important to note that our data shows the majority of flagged events do not stem from adversarial intent

I didn't find this to be sufficiently reassuring. They then link to this paper [0], which I haven't yet read, but from quick skimming, the AI "sabotage" they investigated looks scary. But I am very glad that they're taking the initiative in studying this.

[0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.30322

> Jobs also said death would take care of the problem of people not knowing how to type. I often think he should have taken the similar approach

I was all set for this dark humor, and actually had to double back to then understand the full sentence.

I don't remember when I first encountered it (maybe before ios7), but their cardinal sin for me was my struggling for 10 minutes to make the calculator app go into scientific mode, seeing absolutely no setting for that, before eventually discovering from a friend that you have to physically rotate the phone to landscape orientation to get the additional buttons.

I've been getting them for years now and have enjoyed many of them (though not a large percentage), and would love to use the Epic store more, if only they would implement some version of reviews/scores. Without that, I feel that I can't trust them as a marketplace.