fxwin

there is screeps, but afaik it's purely scripted with no "live" human playing

> it's a mixture of everything sounding identical and everything being a rambling unconcise mess.

For me it's mostly the latter, which is a natural consequence of LLM writing. When the (time) cost-per-word goes down, there is less incentive to keep signal-to-noise ratio high, so it ends up verbose and bloated. I also believe that this is (at least partially) upstream from everything sounding identical: take two articles on two different subjects - when SNR is high, there isn't really much room for them to become similar (The ingredient list for a risotto will never read the same as the ingredient list for pizza), but when 80% of them is fluff, they can blend together more easily (To take the recipe comparison, this would be the background/story part above the recipe), especially when written by the same LLM

good answer, thanks

... what else would we expect it to do?

> When you provide us feedback via our thumbs up / down button, we will store the entire related conversation, including any content, custom styles, conversation preferences, or model settings, in our secured back-end for up to 5 years. [...] We do not combine your feedback with your other conversations with Claude.

it's not proof of existence, but it's suspicious unless there is a good reason why cryptography should be more immune to AI driven progress than other disciplines. If i knew an elephant had walked through my porcelain store, and miraculously all the blue cups survived intact while every other type of cup was smashed to pieces, I'd guess that someone took steps to preserve them.

True! Most of the time i don't remember pictures being there at all (especially in menus), which is (imo) still preferable to having generic AI generated images

Mcdonalds imagery at least matches the ingredients of the food actually being served, if i see a burger joint with a generic ChatGPT burger i have no idea if they actually have pickles on them or not

> However, AI art is especially dangerous for haunted attractions. For haunts, promotional materials are also meant to be indicative of what the experience will be like. AI art can, and often does, give a very misleading impression of what the haunted house will be like.

This is the main reason I heavily dislike the obviously AI generated Flyers, posters and menus you see so often nowadays. When i look at your menu, flyer or poster, the main thing I want to know is "What is this and what can i expect from it?". Real photos of your actual food, embedded in an AI generated layout/design? Good! Great even! "Chatgpt, please make me a flyer for my burger joint"? might as well have a no pictures plaintext flyer/menu.

> because it is saying we're already living in a world where the worst-case is happening, and we're just talking about the odds of any individual experiencing it are going up a little.

I'm not sure I'm following? A raise in temperature doesnt in itself cause any particular wildfire, drought or tsunami (just like the weight in a coin won't), but these events get more and more likely (just like losing the coin flip as the coin gets more and more unfair). This doesn't assume anything about the actual probability or trajectory we're on, if i measure my coinflips and they turn out to be 50/50 the argument is just as valid

> strong evidence

I think that pointing to 1 singular graph as "strong evidence" is a bit shallow. there are plenty of reasons to think that there are many confounding variables here.

> This is a genuinely interesting question

I agree! Intuitively i would think that most ecosystems evolved to adapt to their environment and, unless this environment is characterized by large swings in temperature and other conditions, will suffer in conditions different from the ones they evolved to thrive in. That means that any change in conditions needs to be slow enough for these ecosystems to gradually adjust by whatever means they have access to.

I'm surprised that chicken breast is that low in (water) pollution, beating even lentils. Seems like the big takeaway here is really how awful beef is in comparison to basically anything else lol

So how high should we drive temperature in your opinion? Sounds like you do think it's rising, just that the effects are largely positive

This is a good starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change

One difficulty you will encounter when looking into the effects of climate change is that you can't generally attribute individual events to it (or very rarely at least). Its effects are only really visible in more general (abstract) statistical measures (Just like me losing a coin flip doesn't mean the coin is weighted, but when i lose 8 out of 10 flips i will start getting suspicious)

Sounds like it's the former: URLs are guessable/easily enumerable but their contents protected by auth unless they're "published" using the share feature

I love this podcast. The solo or very physics focused episodes go over my head sometimes but they're always a fun listen. I enjoyed "Jody Azzouni on What Is and Isn't Real" where they (among other things) argue about what it means for a thing to be "real"/"exist", and extend that to mathematical concepts, fictional characters etc.

I don't doubt my comment comes from a place of privilege, but the OP seems like there is some privilege there too so maybe in a way, that makes it an even better fit ;)

I also think both hard and soft skills are important, it just feels to me that a parent's job is primarily the latter, not the former. There are plenty of places that can teach your child very well how to become a programmer/electrician/younameit, but not many places that you trust to teach your child how to be a good human (amplified by the fact that a lot of social conditioning happens and is engrained before we really go super deep down the "tech tree" of hard skills in life)

that's fair, i haven't thought about it that way.

> My economically valuable skillset – programming – suddenly feels less valuable. What shall I teach my son?

Maybe that's just me, but this strikes me as a bit odd. When i think about my parents and what i appreciate about them and how they raised me, hard skills are not very high up the list. Things like encouraging curiosity, agency and freedom to pursue things that I showed interest in even if it meant spending many weekends and many eurodollars on me that they would no doubt have found ways to spend otherwise come to mind first, along with general values about society and how (not) to treat people.

Edit: there are "hard skills" they taught me, but they are more along the lines of "we want you to be a self sufficient human being capable of dealing with life" (cooking, cleaning, how to budget and think about money,...) and less about increasing my value as a participant in the labor market

> When you know the writer personally, it becomes harder to see the text from the author’s perspective if you know it’s not her style.

I think this is why I absolutely hate reading AI-generated PR descriptions, Readmes or wiki entries at work. I work with these people every day, we talk to each other in meetings, but then I read perfectly formatted Slop in the freshly opened PR that has your name and picture attached to it, yet it's almost impossible for me to care about it because (subconsciously or not) i can't bring myself to see it as yours. Same or even worse for reviews.

absolutely unhinged, i love it

I have no idea what I'm looking at here

whether people want to use the service or not is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is whether or not (and how much) they actually do use it. Also there are subscription/flat rate based cinema services that have been in business for almost two decades now, so it doesn't seem like that wouldn't work.

> I don't actually believe that you can stack the dishwasher wrong as such

There are definitely more and less correct ways, but personally i think it's "wrong" to load it in a way that leaves the arms blocked or (not) tilt pieces that get excessive water pooling on top

Because it's kind of true, but also mostly wrong. People conflate two things: "Subsidized" subscriptions as a monetization model, and (unsustainable) subsidization through outside investors.

When you max out your Claude Max plan every billing period, are you consuming more tokens than you could realistically pay for with the same money spent on API inference? Definitely! This works because many Claude Max subscribers don't use it to the max (and you probably aren't using it to the max every single time either), so overall subscriptions might still be profitable. Technically, the subscribers subsidize each other, but this is entirely sustainable (see any other subscription model that is based on its consumers not maximizing their usage, e.g. gyms).

What people mean (or want to say) when they say inference is subsidized is that it is subsidized in an unsustainable way (e.g. with investments that will not last forever - if this is true at scale it should worry us!). What happens now is that they take the fact that an individual subscription used to the max by itself is a financial drain for the company offering it, attach the "subsidized" term to it, and infer from that a bunch of stuff that is usually associated with the term (such as unsustainability) but doesn't really apply here.

Why would LLMs need injected randomness to work effectively? Their nondeterminism isn't by design, it's largely a byproduct of how (batched) inference actually happens on hardware [0]. In case you are referring to the actual token sampling (be it temperature, Top-K or whatever), i wouldn't really see this as part of the LLM itself (And I've frequently seen benchmark sites run them at t=0 anyways)

[0] https://thinkingmachines.ai/blog/defeating-nondeterminism-in...

I agree with basically everything said here, BUT i wish people would stop (mis)using the word "deterministic" in this way:

> Compilers are, for the most part, deterministic in a way that current AI tools are not. Given a high-level programming language construct such as a for loop or if statement, you can, with reasonable certainty, say what the generated assembly will look like for a given computer architecture (at least pre-optimization).

> The same cannot be said for an LLM-based solution to a particular prompt.

This is the correct and meaningful difference to point out here, but it has nothing to do with determinism. LLMs could be perfectly deterministic and still suffer from the same problem. The problem isn't that LLMs themselves are nondeterministic, it's that language is imprecise, and language models themselves are (for the most part) black box text processors. An imagined piece of functionality ("feature") has to pass through both of these somewhat opaque steps before it ends up as code, unlike code that is processed by a compiler, where both the constraints and the structured /formal understanding of the input are much stronger which allows us to reason about and trace the relationship between inputs and outputs in ways that we can't for LLMs and natural language.

I've seen these posted and amplified in a few places over the past few days now, has anyone who is familiar with the adobe suite actually tried these in depth and can comment on their fidelity/quality?

> While the author didn't make proper use of it, this is actually the best example of the articles point.

sure, but they don't actually illustrate that, they just point to a different "starting point", committing the same fallacy

The irony of this article being fully LLM-written

While this applies to many conflicts, it is very pronounced in I/P specifically. I find it a bit ironic that the author picked this example where, for almost any individual event or date in its history that seems particularly horrible or evil, one needs only to go back a few years to get a very different impression of the conflict.