KronisLV
> When it comes to shooters though, those games aren't really about competition and decisions, they are about giving the human player an experience. I do think strong AI is overkill in such situations.
> Again, in shooters, there's no decision, no illusion of fair play or equal competition based on making decisions, it's all about the human experience, and so LLM-level AIs aren't needed here at all.
No, playing against humans absolutely sucks to an untold level for me - because more often than not at some point it ends up being about who has better aim or reaction times and I lose like most of those.
Stuff like that makes everything from CS, Valorant, Battlefield, Wardogs, Active Matter, Tarkov, ABI, Insurgency Sandstorm and any other shooter game unplayable. Meanwhile purely skulking around corners is no fun and also sucks, because that still doesn't resolve the imbalance, and that's after over a thousand hours and sometimes with SBMM and all. Teamwork can't really fix that, even when I tried playing a healer in Valorant friendlies would get taken out, I'd get picked off, round over, we lose.
What I really want is AI that is worse at aiming than I am but is more numerous and makes up for it with numbers and utilizing those numbers well with tactics. Games like FEAR and Trepang2 and Incursion Red River evoke that feeling, but could definitely be made even better in that regard! It would be strong not because of sniping me from across the map like a lazily made bot, but rather because there'd be grenades going out in my direction, they'd use cover well and suppress me while some others push from the flank, not just rush me with godlike aim.
That is before you consider playing online being a minefield (especially in Eastern European servers), it's a coin flip whether someone in Wardogs will be trying to flip choppers or AFK bot at base, or whether they'll decide that being annoying and sharing the best slurs they know is what they want to do today. It seems like there's a narrow band between tryhards who berate you for not playing good enough and people who are just trolling. I don't want that kind of hit or miss experience, ever. It's even the same with Arma RP servers (like Altis Life, the idea is cool) when I tried those - you'd be able to make money by mining and processing ores or whatever for a bit, until someone would randomly shoot you for no real reason.
Nowadays: Electron slop that will also eat a bunch of their RAM.
Personally I think that’s due to the failure of native development properly taking off: you know, actually being good and easy instead of a long line of dead or half dead attempts; alongside platform vendors hating each other and each having a vastly different GUI framework instead of some inter-OS WG to come up with at least good common standards.
I mean if you have only one there’s https://www.qubes-os.org/ but not sure about the gaming part, nor is it necessarily as good as separate isolated hardware.
Architecture page: https://doc.qubes-os.org/en/r4.3/developer/system/architectu...
There's horror stories of automated systems suspending people's Google accounts and suddenly they can't access their photos and other important data.
Like if you use a password manager and all of the passwords are random, might as well go a step further and at least have separate e-mail accounts for groups of activities.
The only difference is the architecture/moving parts/featureset which roughly corresponds to the attack surface, which then roughly corresponds to how many CVEs will be found, though that's also affected by how big a given target is.
For example, total new CVEs:
2024 2025 2026
Forgejo 1 10 >55 (confirmed ones, checked what I could)
Gitea 1 9 121
GitLab 145 165 251
That's not to say that Forgejo is some perfect piece of software, just that it builds on some of the past experience of Gitea and just has both less features than GitLab, is simpler, and also a smaller target. It will probably get >100 per year too soon, but I'd reckon that the totals will remain than GitLab for the foreseeable future.
Maybe I'm wrong!
Just get the source code of Forgejo, audit it thoroughly and run an instance of that.
Sometimes how projects are run is weird, like how Hi-Fi Rush seemed to be doing well and then Microsoft axed them despite it:
> In his letter to staffers, Booty said the closures were “not a reflection of the creativity and skill of the talented individuals at these teams or the risks they took to try new things.” And while the changes will be “disruptive,” Booty said that they are “grounded in prioritizing high-impact titles and further investing in Bethesda’s portfolio of blockbuster games and beloved worlds which you have nurtured over many decades.”
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/05/microsoft-shuts-down-...
I guess that’s just the old “Build One To Throw Away” in a modern light, where prototyping more freely is now actually feasible. I think if you apply the good engineering ideas of the past decades to AI, the results can be really good!
Except I’d also add a lot of testing to the prototype, to bring up as many edge cases as possible.
How could that be made to happen? Should EU somehow move to federated (let’s say per country) instances of Mastodon or something? Or one big platform? How would regular folks get used to it? And how could those initiatives be prevented from falling into irrelevance when network effects are at play?
I agree with the idea, it’s just that there’s the usual hurdles there aren’t necessarily good answers for that I know of.
That said, I bet that’s how eventually we’ll end up with actually good ADEs (and a bunch of dead projects), by taking what works and changing or discarding what doesn’t - for example GitKraken Kepler has a really nice ticketing system integration but also the older versions I’ve tried had vibe slopped UI.
If nothing else, competition should push everyone who is capable to keep up to do better. It is kind of a bummer sometimes, though - I also wanted their Fleet to succeed, but that was before Zed became really good.
To be fair, there were some arguments to the opposite, but an odd situation to be in anyways: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49654350
Though to be fair Opus 5.5 is better than Opus 5 was in that regard. I still prefer the OpenAI models to either of them when it comes to regular prose, though.
If they didn't, they'd be unable to compete with their competition and also we'd get worse models that can't reason about many domains or do that much due to limited training data/generalization. I don't think we can put the cat back in the bag or mandate only non-problematic training codebases without shooting ourselves in the foot.
Now, if those AI orgs were mandated to properly compensate everyone whose data they've mined, to track which neurons get invoked and to pay accordingly based on what was used to train them... ehh, that's about as unrealistic as stopping. Kind of a bad situation all around, unless you abandon the idea of any sort of copyright.
It's an excellent way of showing how unreliable the information you find online is (and it will only get worse in the future), but willfully creating misinformation and made up shit and offering it as fact feels hostile to humanity.
Surely nobody got hurt as a consequence of those "facts", but bad decisions with real world impact could be made regardless. It feels like the behavior should be shunned in a general case (the same way I'd shun those numerous spam sites that pollute search results and very much would prefer they not be allowed to exist), even if in this case the intent was good.
Problem is, you can't really do anything about it, other than figuring out a way to take down hostile sites and keep them from popping up, so it's even worse than fraud or even just bad research in academia.
I feel like an increasing amount of orgs out there have long abandoned this thinking.
I wanted something in the EU, so I went with INWX - their UI is quite unintuitive/bad in my eyes though. I guess Hostinger/IONOS/Gandi/... would also be pretty popular for anyone like me.
> I've worked with many frontend developers who seemed to believe listing dependencies in package.json in devDependencies instead of 'dependencies' controls what ends up in the production bundle.
If so many believe that it’s how it should work, maybe it just should work that way. Principle of least surprise and all that.
The ones who care about AI research and developing software for that kinda stuff, should do that. The ones who can contribute to medicine, various engineering disciplines, or anything else that benefits humanity should do that too. The ones who'd rather squander their lives away when good things that'd benefit others are within reach (regardless of which discipline that is in, AI being just one of many)... I mean sure they can do that but maybe shouldn't do that.
I don't think the readings of anything I've said here are at all charitable so I'm done engaging in this discussion.
What an odd take, why would I suggest that? I meant that people who have the means to do meaningful work, especially high impact work, should do so - generally that'd mean research or in the case of IT, writing good software.
> Great Man Theory
You can see the sibling comment, would you not agree that there's some software and research out there that's very useful to humanity as a whole? Where I and the other critical commenter seem to disagree is that I don't expect another Einstein, but still acknowledge that some people will just achieve much more than others due to a variety of factors.
For example, it's hard to take risks when you're struggling to pay bills due to the economy being in a bad state, and it's hard to build great things when you're in a locale where nobody cares for whatever it may be. It's also hard to make much of an impact, where disproportionate amount of time goes fighting against illness that life has inflicted upon you.
It doesn't make everyone else useless (like me paying my taxes and working on relatively boring software is still good, just low impact), just that those who have the means to do more, should!
I don't care for your outrage because I don't buy into the culture that might be passionate about using the term "NPC" and attaching much additional meaning to it, I'm working with the vocabulary presented. You could substitute that for "normies" if you care for Internet slang, or in other words "average people" - everyone else. In this context, when not talking about some very committed and talented people who, by being in the right place and time, can advance entire areas of research or technology.
> Even having infinite intelligence and work ethic wouldn't allow you to accomplish the things that people in the 20th century were able to simply due to the field maturing significantly since then.
That is also an odd standard to set, just look at how much "Attention Is All You Need" changed things and where we are now. Same with what Carmack did for VR. What about WireGuard, PyTorch, Stable Diffusion, FlashAttention, LoRA? Even within the supposedly mature fields people are still making immensely useful new tech and research that benefits many and that they build upon.
It might not always even be a single individual, but groups of people collaborating and through repeated failures eventually producing something really good!
Again, I see nothing problematic with the original comment's conclusion:
> So if you are able to fly above the AI-generated addictions and have the privilege of time to do it, see what you can do.
I read the rest as commentary on how many won't really have the means/circumstances/capabilities to do so, but the ones that do, should.
I don't get what other words you're trying to put in my mouth, I might not be a fan of the original phrasing, but the point itself isn't bad.
Probably for companies and opportunistic individuals with a high risk tolerance. As for me, just give me hard budget caps. It shouldn't be a choice between supporting one of the approaches, when you could let each client pick what they want.
Want an alert? Configure one.
Want a hard limit? Configure one.
(just make the configuration easy and visible)
I just read it as people having different priorities and yes, some of those being online brainrot (that I also partake in), alongside various medical conditions, economic conditions and other outside factors decreasing the ability to get things done.
We've all seen what brilliant people like John Carmack or Linus Torvalds can do, and if we turned this into a measuring game or something then most of us statistically would indeed be "NPCs", but I don't think we need such optics.
Even without that, we can acknowledge that some people will have a really large impact on how the future goes and we can hope/demand that they do their best. I might not be smart/committed/lucky enough to change the world much, but so aren't most folks - I'll do what I can and I hope that the ones that will have larger impact will do good, too.
[4] https://gitkraken.com/kepler
[7] https://www.conductor.build/
[10] https://www.jetbrains.com/air/
There's also sometimes options that try to have a tighter integration with a single harness, which honestly seems to be better cause ACP is fairly bare:
Personally, I found Paseo to be very pleasant, except sometimes I had sub-agents kinda hang.
Kepler had a really nice issue tracking integration (GitLab/GitHub Issues, Trello, Linear, Jira) but their UI felt like vibe coded slop, like the core experience doesn't feel very good, but they keep adding shit that nobody needs like a graph visualization of what the agents are doing, instead of letting me drag the tasks around the Kanban board myself or tell the agents how to do that and how to transition the issue statuses. Hopefully it's gonna get better within a few years, still early on in development. Still, the idea of an issue tracker integration is brilliant and all harnesses should consider supporting that, e.g. pick which tickets you want to work on, they automatically create worktrees and agents do the planning/research step, presenting you with plans like /grill-me so you can decide what to work on, alongside having a step for merging all of those worktrees whenever you want when a wave of work is done.
I haven't tried most of them tbh cause my OS install doesn't need to be even more of a dumpster, but I'm surprised at how none of these really seem all that... rock solid?
Like if I open a JetBrains IDE like IntelliJ IDEA / Rider I know that despite the crappy resource usage and whatnot, they have the needs of writing, refactoring, debugging and building code covered. Most of the current harnesses seem to get some baseline of telling agents what to do, but still somehow end up being buggy (e.g. can't peek into OpenCode sub-agents and give THEM instructions last I checked, or pause or alter the prompt, despite Claude Code allowing message exchanges with sub-agents and such), and many others are just clones of what already exists.
At the same time the desktop / web apps shipped with harnesses like OpenCode (if there's one at all) are very clearly insufficient and a step below Claude Code Desktop and Codex (ChatGPT app) in usability (like that move to horizontal tabs like browsers have, come on how am I supposed to navigate when there's like 30 of those? or what about an auto mode switch within the UI), so obviously we do need something as an ADE.
Personally I wonder if half of these projects will die off in like 5 years, or whether they'll get more polish or differentiate themselves more, and which will try to push more for cloud-only stuff, like how RooCode essentially dumped their VSC plugins and went all in on the cloud.
On one hand, death is the single most terrifying concept imaginable. In lieu of faith that explains it away, consider being conscious one moment, having been conscious most of your waking like and then it just ending. It being categorically different to the time before you existed, because you now exist. After passing away, never perceiving time, never having a thought, never experiencing anything, not even being aware of that and just being... gone. Forever.
It doesn't sound peaceful to me, or like sleeping, or resting in any way. Instead, that's insanely fucked up, it being common or "inevitable" doesn't make it any less so.
Like when my dad passed away, obviously I was sad about it happening and grieved it, at the same time I can acknwoledge that it was a small mercy that he wouldn't end up bedridden or trapped in a decaying body, and he didn't seem to fear it as much after having lived a long and fulfilling life and being religion-adjacent, but at the same time I very clearly don't like the idea of dying myself some day.
So as far as I know, the only reasons for people to accept the concept of death and permanent nothingness is somewhere between either believing an "after" (and rejecting the possibility of it being a permanent end), being ignorant or indifferent about what it means (the non-solution of "Oh I'll just live on in the memories of other people" which completely doesn't concern your actual consciousness), or simply being more busy with their present lives and such, since it's generally far away.
It rubs me the wrong way, that alongside with research towards more graceful aging (if not to say reversing it, curing cancer etc.) should be way more of a priority for all of humanity, instead of the current realpolitik bullshit. I don't lose much sleep over it, but a feeling of dread, it does evoke. Maybe I'll become even more ignorant with age, but I don't think that'd exactly be a conscious choice.
I mean, given the fuel prices it would be very nice, alongside more charging infrastructure in the EU. :(
Not to detract from the overall point, though to be honest, it's probably worthwhile to do improvements and refinements with the current technology, even if the future holds something vastly different. Both cause of gaining expertise and also maybe an improvement or two along the way, that might carry forward.
Like I haven't seen many steam locomotives around and for me the difference between saturated steam engines and superheated ones isn't very material in regards to transportation, but the latter is used in modern turbines.