user43928

With DS Flash it doesn't fall apart below xhigh like GPT Luna models do?

It can hardly be a "new distraction" when it was evidently planned and announced in 2018.

I also find it unconvincing that the purpose of the stunt is to receive deposits.

This being a prestige project to show off Tesla's advantage in experimental technology, or a personal pet project, would seem a much more likely explanation. Do we really need to bend everything into a malicious scam?

I see little need to speculate here.

The obvious explanation would be that this design for the roadster took 8 years to come to fruition for a demo-able prototype.

I also very much doubt the 2028 timeline for delivery, and what the purpose of the Rocket edition is. Perhaps it's just a prestige project.

The non-flying version at least seems usable on a racing track.

It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how being able to jump and hover for 2-3 seconds could be used to avoid otherwise fatal impacts, provided the software was perfect.

Given that we don't have such software, and that this currently requires trading all three seats for compressed gas storage, there are obviously some hurdles to this becoming a practical emergency feature.

What's the supposed practical use of the submersible?

I imagine that if you were to crash your car into a body of water, the damage could allow water to enter the normally sealed vehicle anyway.

That does not really sound cooler than a car that can drive up walls and jump.

Musk already talked about the cold gas thrusters for the Tesla Roadster in 2018.

It would seem that your theory that the idea arose out of a need to distract from current financials doesn't hold merit.

He probably just wanted to design a cool car.

Out of curiosity, I checked how Musk's wealth of $1.02T is allocated.

  75.7% SpaceX
  15.1% Tesla
  1.3% The Boring Company
  7.6% Other

His political donations for the 2025-26 cycle are apparently $366M.

In my opinion it's an order of magnitude faster with AI.

That things come out perfectly working without need for QA and refinement cycles when writing the code manually seems very unlikely, and the case where coding it yourself is faster than explaining the task to the AI does practically not exist.

> as the project grows there's a risk of it becoming unmanageable

I suspect that what you said there is not based on actual experience but rather something you imagine. In my personal experience AI has shown no issues working efficiently on projects with even 500k LOC.

It's also my experience that visibility of my comments is quite low without paying.

Only occasionally, once the comment picks up some likes, more people view it.

I don't have that issue with my For You, it's mostly tech.

Can you substantiate the claims about the supposedly biased algorithm and what exactly the "creator" said about it?

In my experience it isn't noticeably worse than other platforms, and I'm not aware of concrete complaints such as the incidents with Grok's system prompt, which is a different product.

I don't see how this follows.

Saying that OpenAI does this only to show off their models, rather than also advance mathematics or at the very least their model's mathematical capabilities, seems speculative.

I understand OpenAI published write-ups for each problem.

It's unclear to me what other expectations mathematicians have that would demonstrate OpenAI's commitment to advancing mathematics.

Last I heard they asked to completely stop solving math problems with AI, which seems just ridiculous.

I find it shallow.

Beneath the sarcasm it's making a rather simplistic argument that OpenAI cares little about human understanding of the results or their correctness.

The author appears to argue that this in service of a pointless goal, that no one will even care to read the results, and that all this is taking away from human creativity and removing the fun in scientific discovery.

I don't see a convincing argument here that OpenAI does not in fact aim to further humanity's understanding of mathematics, or that using AI for scientific discovery is comparable to automating away the fun parts of life.

The sarcasm is rhetorically strong, but profound? I don't think so.

What if, in a year, the labor market impact is significant across the board and unemployment is reaching historic heights?

The government should provide the financial support and implement mechanisms for distributing AI-generated wealth more broadly, as planned in the policy proposals Anthropic and OpenAI publish.

I am truly optimistic about the future, and I think it is too early to say that things are not going to get better.

We could very well have a nice life with minimal requirement to work for salary in the near future.

Makes me wonder whether it's a fundamental limitation of the technology or more like missing a good set of tasks in the training pipeline

I'm sure Google's latest push to make it inconvenient to install apps from outside Google's Playstore, where Google charges a 30% commission, is going to solve that.

The key question isn't whether the AI autonomously generates fun games or whether every game created with eg. Opus 5.5 is fun.

The answer would be no, obviously not.

The question is whether AI enables the general public to build fun games with no prior experience and with a fraction of the previous effort.

What I said is that some of the successful and therefore likely fun games made with AI are projects already started like late last year.

Considering that it still takes months to build a good product, these capability improvements are diffusing relatively slowly.

It is imaginable that models available in early 2027 can allow individuals or small teams to produce games of AAA scope, taking care of the technical aspects.

You still wouldn't expect to see a finished product until later that year, unless the AI developed something resembling taste and creativity, which today still needs to be injected by us. Not to mention stronger capabilities for evaluating visual work, motion, and physics.

I use toothpaste with arginine which I understand physically blocks the channels where the nerves that react to hot/cold stuff are.

I did not have much trouble with my teeth yet so I can't say how effective it really is, but it seems to work for me and isn't that expensive.

I'm also not sure, but I heard arguments that politicians and eg. Musk are trying to use immigration to distract the public from wealth inequality for example.

Or that politicians are not trying to solve immigration issues in order to stay in power.

Really I've heard all kinds of theories used to discount the actual issues or the motivations of those who make politics about immigration.

Most of them are likely nonsense with maybe a kernel of truth here and there, but that's just how politics are, right?

> Making something that's really good takes talent and creativity and AI isn't capable of that

I agree. You need to constantly inject taste and creativity via a lot of testing, feedback, and iteration.

With current technology, this still takes months to years of effort, depending on the scope of the project.

I feel that when you say AI game, it sounds like slop produced near autonomously in a single weekend.

There are other ways to fully use AI for software implementation and asset generation, but still apply standards.

One can spend a full day refining a single gameplay element to tune it into something enjoyable, or to explore and select assets that look great. This can happen with just prompting and testing.

Many skip the effort, and it currently of course results in a bad, barely working product.

No, I also only tried some to see if they are running.

I'm thinking more of the technical capability. I tested some Chinese browser game that played like an old GTA and it worked decently well on my iPhone.

Evidently the tools are good enough now.

I believe the issue is that there's a lot of people who just release slop. Both for games and regular software.

To build a decent product you need to invest months into testing and refining. Clearly many skip this in order to ship barely working garbage.

For the capabilities of eg. Opus 5.5 to diffuse into actual products rather than just demos, it's going to take some months.

I'm sure some readers are thinking that I'm just moving the goalposts into the future here, but it's the truth. For the games that were made with AI and which already are making money, I found that many are projects started already last year.

I myself have been working on a commercial mobile app for the last six months, targeting a release this week.

Building a good product still takes time.

From all I have seen measurable performance improvements are what AI excels at.

Is this your first hand experience?

A reboot of the phone fixed the connection in the other way so that I can paste on the Mac again.

With that, a hardware issue or connection problems seems to be ruled out.

Apple's software is simply buggy.

Both Anthropic and OpenAI switched to saying "we aren't seeing the feared significant labor market impact" around this summer and that they are not expecting mass unemployment next year.

I don't think people care much for what they say.

Personally I strongly believe that creativity is essential to creating with AI today.

You have to be in the loop to inject taste at some point. This typically requires a lot of testing and feedback.

I don't know if AI will ever develop taste, or if it even should. We have enough human creativity and creating is fun.

So, how were the more creative pelicans created? I assume by changing the prompt from the default.

I don't see why you couldn't do the same in real projects.

If the design looks too generic, you can just ask for a change, no?

Hardly. I argued that we could see a shift to such art being produced by individuals or small teams rather than large commercial studios.

It's certainly already possible to implement fun games with Opus 5.5 today, with no prior experience.

The idea that this will next year be possible for more polished 3D games with a larger scope is far from ridiculous.

If a community of users get together on Discord to collaborate on a project, I see no reason why this should not work.

No, in fact inference is far cheaper than most think, see analysis for serving Kimi K3.

If you mean OpenAI and Anthropic's investments into R&D, ok, perhaps.

However, they will not be able to increase prices unless what they are offering next is a significant enough improvement over the current SOTA, which might only be six months ahead of the Chinese models.

If AI progress continues on a similar trajectory for even just another six months, we will just be building the games and software ourselves.

When people with no prior experience, including teenagers, can produce a polished game by investing a few hundred hours of their free time to do the creative part, what do we need Ubisoft and co. for?

No. Ethernet, WiFi, and Bluetooth are all on.

I believe a reboot sometimes restores functionality.

Also, testing now showed that they connect successfully and copying from the Mac to the phone even works. Just not the other way around.