tyg13

I've noticed a prevailing narrative (mostly observed on Reddit) that DLSS 5 "rewrites" artistic intent, painting NVIDIA as sort of carelessly slopifying games without any care for aesthetic in the sole pursuit of selling more AI. I don't really see any confirmation of that on the technical side, and personally I agree with you, I think the results look completely fine, but I guess there's no accounting for taste.

Part of me wants to just chalk it up to general AI backlash, but it also feels like there's a bit more there that I can't quite put my finger on. Gamers just generally being a contentious and picky demographic? I'm not sure.

This is only true if people's want for it exceeds their want to not break the law.

For illegal drugs, people who want them want them a lot, so them being illegal isn't a strong deterrent; although, legalization has still absolutely increased the number of users (i.e. legality was acting as an effective deterrent for some.)

For illegal gambling, sure _some_ people won't be deterred by legality, but most people aren't hardcore gambling addicts; they're just engaging as a form of "harmless fun." They're not looking to go to jail to toss $20 on a sports game.

No, I only use the finest, home-grown, naturally-produced Human Brain slop to make my comments.

That's because they literally live in an isolated society where everyone else accords to the same rules about technology. Unless you're going off to live on a commune, you're not going to be able to live like the Amish in 2026.

The belief in "72 virgins" (not 52) is not a common belief amongst Muslim men. It's basically a Western misconception, likely inspired by a specific translation of Osama bin Laden's 1996 manifesto.

I don't really think that good writing and LLM writing looks all that similar. It's not always easy to spot (and maybe HN users aren't always doing a great job at it), but even the best LLM output tends to have an "LLM smell" to it that's hard to avoid.

Like, sure, LLM writing is almost always grammatically correct, spelled correctly, formatted correctly, etc., which tends to be true of good writing. But there's a certain style that it just can't get away from. It's not just the em-dashes, the semi-colons, or the bulleted lists. It's the short, punchy sentences, with few-to-no asides or digressions. Often using idiom, but only in a stale, trite, and homogenized manner. Real humans, are each different -- which lends a certain unpredictability to our writing, even if trying to write to a semi-formal standard, the way "good" writers often do -- but LLMs are all so painfully the same, and the output shows it.

Doesn't it just make sense though? How else would he have gotten 800 billion dollars?

It all basically boils down to: in order to dissipate heat, you need something to dissipate heat into, e.g. air, liquid, etc. Even if you liquid cool the GPUs, where is the heat going to go?

On Earth, you can vent the heat into the atmosphere no problem, but in space, there's no atmosphere to vent to, so dissipating heat becomes a very, very difficult problem to solve. You can use radiators to an extent, but again, because no atmosphere, they're orders of magnitude less effective in space. So any kind of cooling array would have to be huge, and you'd also have to find some way to shade them, because you still have to deal with heat and other kinds of radiation coming from the Sun.

It's easier to just keep them on Earth.

Presumably Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic.

Surprised to see this comment strike a nerve with the HN crowd. That was my first thought as well. Religious organizations? No thanks.

Eh, I got a cheap degree from a public school (URI), albeit in Mathematics and not Comp Sci and it hasn't stopped me getting good tech jobs over the last decade or so. I'm currently working at a FAANG. Maybe I'm just extra hard-working, smart, or lucky? Or maybe your pedigree isn't as big a deal as it once was? Hard to say from my N=1 data point.

If you live in a jurisdiction where there is a speed limit enforced by law, you likely have driven above it at some point. By definition, this is a violation of the law. Yet you have observed that you have never been arrested (perhaps never even ticketed?) as a result of this. Is this a logical contradiction? Obviously not. The law isn't always enforced, and not every violation of the law is punished.

I can't speak for where you live, but in America, there are many, many traffic laws. They differ greatly by jurisdiction. Most of them are not enforced. Sometimes explicitly -- for example, in my city, they recently announced they would no longer detain people for specific minor traffic violations -- but usually, it's implicit which go unpunished. It's also selective. By creating an unseen web of violations, the detaining officer is given all the necessary tools to make each stop as painful or as peaceful as they'd like.

Sure, you can ask the agents to "identify and remove cruft" but I never have any confidence that they actually do that reliably. Sometimes it works. Mostly they just burn tokens, in my experience.

> And it's not like any of your criticisms don't apply to human teams.

Every time the limitations of AI are discussed, we see this unfair standard applied: ideal AI output is compared to the worst human output. We get it, people suck, and sometimes the AI is better.

At least the ways that humans screw up are predictable to me. And I rarely find myself in a gaslighting session with my coworkers where I repeatedly have to tell them that they're doing it wrong, only to be met with "oh my, you're so right!" and watch them re-write the same flawed code over and over again.

No, that's the game engine.

Depends on what format you view it in. For the printed version of the spec, it's sufficient ;)

Yeah, I see quite a lot of misanthropy in the rhetoric people sometimes use to advance AI. I'll say something like "most people are able to learn from their mistakes, whereas an LLM won't" and then some smartass will reply "you think too highly of most people" -- as if this simple capability is just beyond a mere mortal's abilities.

You can teach a human when they make a mistake. Can you do the same for an LLM?

I'll never doubt the ability of people like yourself to consistently mischaracterize human capabilities in order to make it seem like LLMs' flaws are just the same as (maybe even fewer than!) humans. There are still so many obvious errors (noticeable by just using Claude or ChatGPT to do some non-trivial task) that the average human would simply not make.

And no, just because you can imagine a human stupid enough to make the same mistake, doesn't mean that LLMs are somehow human in their flaws.

> the gap is still shrinking though

I can tell this human is fond of extrapolation. If the gap is getting smaller, surely soon it will be zero, right?

IMO, Python should only be used for what it was intended for: as a scripting language. I tend to use it as a kind of middle ground between shell scripting and compiled languages like Rust or C. It's a truly phenomenal language for gluing together random libraries and data formats, and whenever I have some one-off task where I need to request some data from some REST API, build a mapping from the response, categorize it, write the results as JSON, then push some result to another API -- I reach for Python.

But as soon as I have any suspicion that the task is going to perform any non-trivial computation, or when I notice the structure of the program starts to grow beyond a couple of files, that's when Python no longer feels suitable to the task.

Mathematical notation isn't at all backwards compatible, and it certainly isn't consistent. It doesn't have to be, because the execution environment is the abstract machine of your mind, not some rigidly defined ISA or programming language.

> Everyone seems to agree tau is better than pi. How much adoption has it seen?

> It took hundreds of years for Arabic numerals to replace Roman numerals in Europe.

What on earth does this have to do with version numbers for math? I appreciate this is Hacker News and we're all just pissing into the wind, but this is extra nonsensical to me.

The reason math is slow to change has nothing to do with backwards compatibility. We don't need to institute Math 2.0 to change mathematical notation. If you want to use tau right now, the only barrier is other people's understanding. I personally like to use it, and if I anticipate its use will be confusing to a reader, I just write `tau = 2pi` at the top of the paper. Still, others have their preference, so I'm forced to understand papers (i.e. the vast majority) which still use pi.

Which points to the real reason math is slow to change: people are slow to change. If things seem to be working one way, we all have to be convinced to do something different, and that takes time. It also requires there to actually be a better way.

> Is this what "heavy optimization" looks like?

I look forward to your heavily-optimized Math 2.0 which will replace existing mathematical notation and prove me utterly wrong.

What in the Hacker News in this comment?

Mathematical notation evolved to its modern state over centuries. It's optimized heavily for its purpose. Version numbers? You're being facetious, right?

I weep for a world that is increasingly dominated by corporations, filled with people who are insistent (probably correctly) that they are being taken advantage of, doing the bare minimum, all resulting in an awful experience for everyone. Behind every support ticket that you just can't seem to get resolved, every horrible experience trying to use some product seemingly designed to drive you insane, behind every hare-brained decision that makes your life miserable for seemingly no reason, there's an apathetic worker who's taken your mindset. The impact of your efforts doesn't just affect your employer. We all work together to create the world. What kind of world do you want to live in?

I would hope there to be a healthy medium between "pulling all nighters" and "Do bare minimum" -- perhaps somewhere where we all try to do our best, but don't push ourselves too hard for no reason? I mean, that's more reasonable than imagining we'll one day overthrow our corporate overlords. Probably, I'm naive and idealistic. But I can't help but feel like the result of apathy is not satisfaction.

Exactly. This amounts to a partial nationalization of Intel.

The surprise is the federal government acting like an unfair negotiator, substantially altering the deal after it had already been struck. Equity in return for investment grants was never a part of CHIPS, and was only made part of it by Trump who seems to have originally wanted to kill the deal because it wasn't made by him.

Depends on who you ask. Trump himself seems to think the US is getting 10% for free. I think that's a fair assessment given that these grants were already supposed to be paid out to Intel, without any kind of equity stake promised.

Worth noting that Intel is the only company that had these kinds of shenanigans pulled with their grant. Samsung, TSMC, Micron and others were granted similar funds without any kind of withholding or demands for equity from the federal government.

For me, voice input is an immediate no-go because I don't want to have to talk to myself while I'm in line at the grocery store, or waiting for my oil change, or in the dozens of other situations where I typically use my smartphone to do things.

Why does this read like an LLM produced it?

I think this takes an unnecessarily narrow view of what "intelligence" implies. It conflates "intelligence" with fact-retention and communicative ability. There are many other intelligent capabilities that most normally-abled human beings possess, such as:

- Processing visual data and classifying objects within their field of vision.

- Processing auditory data, identifying audio sources and filtering out noise.

- Maintaining an on-going and continuous stream of thoughts and emotions.

- Forming and maintaining complex memories on long-term and short-term scales.

- Engaging in self-directed experimentation or play, or forming independent wants/hopes/desires.

I could sit here all day and list the forms of intelligence that humans and other intelligent animals display which have no obvious analogue in an AI product. It's true that individual AI products can do some of these things, sometimes better than humans could ever, but there is no integrated AGI product that has all these capabilities. Let's give ourselves a bit of credit and not ignore or flippantly dismiss our many intelligent capabilities as "useless."

I feel like, if nothing else, this new wave of AI products is rapidly demonstrating the lack of faith people have in their own intelligence -- or maybe, just the intelligence of other human beings. That's not to say that this latest round of AI isn't impressive, but legions of apologists seem to forget that there is more to human cognition than being able to regurgitate facts, write grammatically-correct sentences, and solve logical puzzles.

If they try to sell their software, by your own admission, you won't consume it. That's the point. The fantasy is the idea that some of these open-source products would even work as a closed-source proprietary business model.