monospacegames

Did you spill your DNA everywhere writing this too? Or just on yourself?

It is not my wish for nitter to shoulder any more burden than they can reasonably carry, which at this point unfortunately seems zero.

What I'm stating is that I'd normally be against a project like nitter on moral grounds had it been targeting a forum such as mineralenthusiasts.com that required you to log in to view posts, but since the counterparty in this case is a habitual bad actor extending the same goodwill to them only empowers them, and it would be best for nitter to function as much as it can unless its illegality is established in court.

I could accuse you of things as equally unpleasant as psychopathy for making me spell this out, which I had hoped would be incredibly obvious from my original comment, but I'll refrain from doing so.

Normally I'd agree, but in this case the people on the other end of the issue rarely care about how vague the legality of something is before going forward with it, so I think it's only reasonable to extend the same logic to nitter.

Surprised to see this so soon given how much contention there seemed to be around the recent vote.

I agree with your first paragraph. I myself do not use AI for my personal projects (such as the game engine I'm developing), and do not intend to do so in the future regardless of how far AI develops.

I'm not arguing in favor of a human existence that is completely based on consumption, but one that maximizes automation as much as possible for the benefit of society as a whole so that all human labor becomes voluntary. At that point people will decide which processes are important for them to participate in on their own.

>in the distant future some society will recognize that everything that can be automated should not be automated

No, everything that can be automated SHOULD be automated, but the automation should benefit everyone instead of just the 0.1% (actually this percentile keeps getting smaller and smaller, so the percentage of people outside of the "permanent underclass" is probably even less than that now).

The problem about AI (at its current level, barring AI2027 type scenarios) is not about AI, but about the way we've organized society as a whole.

I've brought this up before, if the USSR existed today how would Soviet mathematicians react to AI? Would they be dismayed or overjoyed? You never see mathematicians acknowledge this point, but it's the crux of the issue. In our society employment justifies existence, in a society where existence is inherently justified AI would mean freedom to people instead of causing existential dread.

My criticism is about OP's attempt at getting better at math. I have no knowledge of or concern for the Math Academy curriculum. But reading this post obviously did not give me a favorable impression of it.

I wrote it on the assumption that it would be something that OP could reasonably pay for, a possible alternate path for someone who wanted to improve at math and was willing to make an effort, specifically less of an effort than what they seem to have ended up doing in terms of time-commitment. Considering how much they value their time it may have even been more cost effective.

Math Academy is not the main subject of this post. The main subject of this post is OP's attempt at getting better at math through 1000 days of self study, in which that site is an instrument. My criticism is about how his approach may have been ineffective and may not be an ideal guide for others. It is the said ineffectiveness that made me question if his attempt was genuine.

I hope this has been clear enough for you. Let me know if you need more.

I'm sorry but I can't help but be critical. This seems more like an advertisement for a duolingo-for-math than a serious personal undertaking. I am not sure if this level of proficiency is something you want to boast of at the end of 1000 days of self-directed study, regardless of what level you started at. Do you think you'd be better or worse off with just doing two days a week with a personal tutor?

Also I am fairly certain that not taking a day off has hindered your progress rather than improved it. This is not a productive attitude and ritualizes the study instead of encouraging self-reflection.

I wonder how long it will take for the damage Alpöge and Buckmaster have done to the perception of these AI-driven scientific developments to fade.

Not saying that they were right or wrong, but that single moment sullied all AI-driven breakthroughs that came after it, and I don't think it was ever particularly relevant, at least not nearly to the degree that it was presented in the media. But I guess it ended up being a convenient outlet for AI anxiety in the end.

I am aware that not everyone goes about their work with pride and passion.

My point is that if AI continues to improve perhaps people deriving enjoyment from an activity will be the only ones left engaging with it, and this seems to exclude the vast, vast majority of software developers today.

The lack of respect software developers have for their craft confounds me every day, to the point that I wonder if anyone in software actually writes code because they enjoy it, instead of making money.

>In that future world (which for some of us is already here), what meaning does the term “vibecoding” have anymore? If all coding is AI-assisted won’t it just be referred to as… “coding”?

Apply the same question to music, or drawing, and perhaps the answer to this will be easier to see. If AI continues to improve I think it's much more likely that all human-written code in the future will be 100% human written. Vibecoding or any human-in-the-loop approach seems like a very intermediate paradigm.

Then again this post seems to be a few months old, so perhaps it's understandable that they weren't "feeling the AGI" as severely as we have been the past few weeks.

It is such an incredibly disrespectful way of communication.

If the author can't bother to write the article himself why should the thousands of people who come across this post bother to read it?

How do I know where the author's own thoughts end and AI's assumptions about his thoughts begin?

Then again people typically don't read past the title so I suppose it doesn't matter what the content of the article is, as long as it gets people talking and directs traffic to their website.

It's been a while since I last played DF and I'm surprised to see that both this article and the video are a bit light on details, IIRC they used to showcase upcoming updates a lot more.

Digging a bit more it looks like the magic system will be built around deities, spheres of influence [1], and workshops/professions centered around magic leading to procedurally generated spells. I'm really excited to see how it'll turn out.

[1] https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/Sphere

Is this the culture referred to as BMAC? I've recently heard that both them and the Indus Valley Civilization remain fairly unresearched, which was surprising to me.

As much as these solutions sound good a true fix requires a drastic change in corporate culture at Microsoft and an attitude shift towards their users which seems ... extremely unlikely to happen in the mildest words. No "hardcore mode" or transparency about telemetry, or removing any other anti-user behavior will last as long as the people who made these decisions and the culture that led to them stay in place.

Financially Valve exists in an incomparably different space compared to companies like Take Two that actually have to make games to make money.

Wouldn't have happened under Dan Houser. R* made too much money for its own good.

On another note, heard on Bloomberg today that they've been working on GTA 6 for 10 years at this point. Considering the size of their development teams it's possible that more manhours may have gone into this single title than all video games that were made until the PS1 era combined.

It's funny how multiple commenters here are reacting to this article by saying that older media is also bad when the article itself is about specific observations about how relying on AI and overengaging in social media can lead to detrimental outcomes.

Ironically this tendency to form an opinion without investing time might also be a form of brain rot.

I remember reading a few months ago (don't know where though, maybe Ed Zitron's blog) that they'd pivot to porn once growth slowed down, and it seemed outlandish to me at the time.

Is that why they got banned in India recently? Because they were too good at offering complex financial instruments to customers at competitive prices?

Ultimately companies like Jane Street have no moral rudder and it is a waste of talent for smart young people to work for them, but we are so far beyond such considerations at this point that it sounds naive to even suggest that maybe talented people should work on things that make society better for everyone and care about the moral implications of their work. Instead everyone is looking for a way to contribute to the coming dystopia in whatever way they can because that's where the money is.

Recently went through this process and thought my experience might save others from some headache.

I think they're showcasing existing projects instead of making a new one each day.

Yes, but my point is that the article is constructed in a way that deliberately obfuscates that there is unrelated text following the phishing message (quoting my initial comment: The full email is definitely in the format "scary text here" "actual google message", so something like "Give us all your money or die has been created as a google app")

This led to the initial response here being quite frantic (some people even claiming that DKIM is now pointless) because presumably not everyone read the article to its very end where the actual explanation is, and then went back to the first image to realize that the author has been intentionally misleading to sell their cybersecurity services.

Announcing new Thiel-backed startup: Shadowfax

Our secure, centralized and proprietary offering with native AI and blockchain layers will replace the obsolete cruft that is email. Already secured several DoD contracts and expect to fully replace email for all internal and external communications of the federal government by 2027.

I agree, the article is intentionally deceptive. It's written to make people think the part of the mail shown in the image is the whole email when in reality it's definitely followed by some text that would raise suspicion in any person.

"Read the full email before freaking out" would probably be appropriate. This article is deceptive because it does not show the full email and only shows the phishing part. The full email is definitely in the format "scary text here" "actual google message", so something like "Give us all your money or die has been created as a google app", which would raise an eyebrow even in the most non-technical person.