05.12.2025 12:33
👍 5
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
If you see this, repost with your model of positive masculinity.
The Intellectual seems to fear change and being wrong.
The seekers fear being harmed because they held onto truths that were distortions of reality.
Just a theory in progress.
The ones who seek truth have trained themselves to constantly seek truth and find reasons they are wrong.
The driving motivation between them seems to be the kinds of fear they have.
This idea is kind of developing in mind, still unclear and premature:
There are two kinds of intelligent people: those who seek truth and intellectuals.
Intellectuals defend their version of reality and are masters at self deception.
Finished Andor S2, I haven't seen such a well written show in so long.
This perspective is kind of glass half empty: AI makes working within the bounds of the known effortless and 'dumb'.
The glass half full perspective is that you are now free and unburdened to go where no one has and explore the impossible.
To those who think AI is making them dumber, because AI makes thinking easy, I wonder if they've tried working beyond the limits of collective human knowledge?
dcurt.is/thinking
Language was the last thing people would point to separate us from animals.
I'm glad this line can now be erased. They are of us.
The entitled watched, stunned, as their stolen bounty became common property. The end. 3/3🧵
Growing bolder, the entitled started hoarding fruit and building fences.
The hard working got less each day, as the entitled fenced off more branches, and had to work harder to keep the tree bountiful.
Finally, a spark ignited a fury. The hard working tore down the fences. 2/3 🧵
Once upon a time, there was a tree that could grow fruit every day if you offered the tree something in return.
Everyone worked hard to keep the tree bountiful.
A few entitled people offered nothing. Others had to work harder to make up for their entitlement. 1/3🧵
'Free' markets work because you distribute thinking and problem solving among many people.
No one sees everything. No one knows everything. No one person can be expected to rule perfectly.
Power is the same.
As my favourite philosopher, Kanye West says: No one man should have all that power.
Post a female character that you love
In the future full AGI will put all of human knowledge at our fingertips: what would humans have to know?
AI can take care of details, so the only limit is you and the limits of your imagination
AI has no desires, no wants, so it's up to us to lead to where we want
To unknown unknowns
A good term for the current generation of AI reasoning might be 'cargo-cult' reasoning.
Just like the original cargo-cult phenomenon, AI is being trained to memorise instances of reasoning and then copy and paste without much concern for why it worked.
Programming with C++ templates seems like doing division with roman numerals, doable but unnecessarily complicated.
Zig's comptime and Lisp macros feel like the decimal system, even a child could use it.
Don't most people just use genres to define subcategories of video games? Like steam tags, for example.
Really nice voxels
What happens to us after AI?
Labour is free. AI can do everything we can. So the economy may be based on resources.
A few people own everything now, so would that lead to feudal times?
OR
You could mine asteroids and other planets for limitless resources, so would that lead to post-scarcity?
I also found it motivating to tell other people what I plan to do, perhaps even on a public forum. It would really bother me to think others think I am someone who can't deliver, and that my word isn't worth anything.
Org mode has entered the chat
Eventually, I think we'll have AI efficient enough to run on a laptop. Then you can own your AI, and the adspace kind of falls apart because you can direct your AI to filter out what you aren't interested in.
I think then companies will have to make compelling value propositions, to be profitable.
Game Design Challenge #1: come up with a game idea given a prompt
The Prompt: God RPG
My version: player is one of many gods living on mount Olympus. You grow your realm to get new stats and perks. Gods have friendly competitions between realms.
Now you:
Forced random encounters aren't inherently bad, but, more often than not, they are placed as an obstacle to what the player wants, and usually isn't meaningful and serves to pad out the game.
They are best avoided, if the goal is to not waste player time.
I do agree. I guess the parts where I don't want randomness are in
- what the player does: the action that a player takes cannot have random consequences, it must be causal
- how the world works: the game world must be predictable or causal
The world could still have random procedural generation.
I'd always interpreted hopepunk to be a rebellion against the accepted norm that everything is hopeless, capitalism won, etc
I hadn't come across the idea of 'punk' being 'inherently good'. I thought it meant to rebel against the status quo. Will have to read up the white supremacy origins.
AI is a search space problem:
Infinite Monkeys + Infinite Typewriters = Shakespeare
How to find monkey Shakespeare:
- remove untenable solutions (eg ones w/o enough brain power)
- start at a random point, make continous small, guided changes
- combine partial solutions, w/ evolution
- ...?
In games, a complex enough AI NPC may be indistinguishable from randomness.
I think the point I would have a problem with it would be when I have no hope of predicting it's behaviour. It must have a pattern, as all complex systems do. For the same inputs, it must have the same output.
I was about to agree with you, then I realised a human opponent, who lives in a deterministic universe, is just highly complex and not truly random.