I dunno man, as someone who’s worked directly with him and seen him in the flesh many times, it’s painfully obvious why Steve Jobs was an amazing (and flawed) human being that had people flocking around him. To act like someone has to be perfect in order to be admirable, that we don’t all have our thorns and warts, is in my opinion, a disingenuous take on the human condition. He did a lot of shitty things, like all of us if we go digging through our respective closets, but the man was truly a rare type of entrepreneur who even today completely stands out from the typical tech CEOs of Silicon Valley (many of which are also douchey, amoral, island-affiliated people, yet people still want to work for them). If this isn’t obvious to you why, my only guess is that you haven’t seen as many sides of him, or you’re not being honest about what it means to be human.
This is ultimately the core issue with the games industry right now. We still haven't cracked game discovery at scale. What are the current approaches currently missing?
That’s the exact vibe it gave. That also extends to most startups focused on making one shot prompt-to-game tools. It shows a lack of understanding or respect for how the best games are actually made, and a focus on low-depth generic games.
The good news is your attention to actually reading and understanding documentation will differentiate you more and more as others (short-sighted, IMO) outsource understanding to an LLM.
The more code writes autonomously, the less intuition the human owners have about that code. Loss of intuition is a seed of technical debt that grows with time. Over a long enough horizon, it can make looking at your own codebase feel like the first day on the job (sometimes at a company you started).
Luckily, there are ways to mitigate this and essentially translate those human intuition of how the codebase “should” be into guardrails for the agents. But without that, your setting your sails in a stochastic sea where each wave looks nothing like the last.
Isn’t this also counting on the AI company faithfully reproducing the contents of the book, and no hallucinations or shenanigans occurring? How will we ever know what the book actually said if people wanted to argue its contents later?
Or maybe we’d have LLMs that fit in a handful of GBs (and we technically already do). It’s hard to tell without completely going down that parallel universe and simulating all the milestones in it, but it’s a fun thought experiment.
This is actually how Jeff Dean, Chief Scientist at Google recommends doing thought exercises to challenge assumptions (watch is recent YX Startup School talk). The end goal isn’t “128GB of RAM”, the goal is “useful effective software”. If for whatever reason RAM was an immovable constraint, a different tech tree would emerge.
I live near Plum Island. Just look at the Google Map reviews to get an idea of the sentiment. Camp Hero, Plum Island…lotta material for Netflix series coming out of Long Island.
Snow Leopard _did_ focus on stability. It wasn't just marketing. Did new bugs (and even new features) slip in? Yes, of course. It's still an OS made by humans, making imperfect cost-benefit calculations on how to mitigate risk while providing increased value to the end user.
So to say that some people weren't happy with all iterations of Snow Leopard is par for the course for just about any OS or even software release, and IMO doesn't really change the ethos of Snow Leopard.
Those who know game dev know making good isometric maps can be deceptively difficult. You grabbed that bull by the horns and did so beautifully. Well done!
Until the industry addresses the Original Sin of Generative AI (and the ascendance of Thievery Corporations), we should expect more and more of this. So far, theft has been rewarded. As long as you make enough money, people seem to be okay with ignoring long-lasting impacts of intellectual theft. As long as you become King of the Cannibals, it seems many are happy to remember you as King and not as the Cannibal.
It's time for this bubble to pop already. We need to get past this centralized, unsustainable, undesirable, Big Brother stage of AI and get on to the "AI hosted in your kitchen" phase before we mess up the balance of power too much and effectively backdoor the US constitution to power hungry technocrats.
What happened to the early wave of IP lawsuits against the first wave of model makers? Did anything stick/make a difference? Did _any_ frontier model company retroactively-migrate to consent-based models?