ChairmanMeow

@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Let's Build a Dungeon (in development), a MMORPG development game with both management elements and world creation, releases a demo on Steam⁩ ⁨⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  I’ve toyed with this game concept in my head for a while, really happy to see some studio just built it. It looks a lot like what I had envisioned!

  Instant wishlist for me!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Reading into something that is said⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  States that governments don’t need taxes to finance stuff

  Lists reasons why governments really do need to do so and that not doing so is a terrible idea

  Refuses to elaborate

  Leaves

  What did he mean by this?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Javier Milei ends budget deficit in Argentina, first time in 123 years⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I mean, inflation is mostly down (still high compared to other nations but it’s not monstrous anymore). The big issue is that poverty rates have skyrocketed. The big question is how he is going to address that (if at all).

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Making peace with liking very few games?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  82% positive just means that out of everyone who decided to buy it in the first place, 82% feel like they got what they expected. If you don’t expect greatness, then perhaps this game is exactly what you thought it’d be.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why do we use the term Ban when it's temporary? Why not the more accurate, Suspension?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  The difference between ban and suspend isn’t a temporal difference. Here’s the Cambridge dictionary definition of “suspend”:

  to stop something from being active, either temporarily or permanently (see: dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/…/suspend)

  Here’s the definition for “ban”:

  to forbid (= refuse to allow) something, especially officially (see dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ban?q…)

  The difference between the two is the subject: an active process or service can be suspended, but something specific (e.g. an action, object or person) can be banned. Ban also implies a more official act in order to punish someone or prevent something (Johnny was banned from entering the bus), whereas a suspension doesn’t necessarily have that ‘negative’ context (e.g. the bus service was suspended, which doesn’t imply this happened because the bus driver was drunk or something).

  In a more Lemmy-specific context, you could say you suspended someone’s access to the platform, or that you banned them from the platform. Neither way of saying it implies anything about the duration. You can’t however really say you suspended someone from the platform, that doesn’t really work.

  In this context, I think the direct implication that a ban is handed out because someone did something bad is a lot clearer than when you use the word suspension. Because of that I believe ban to be the more context-appropriate word here. Suspend does not carry that connotation as something can be suspended for a whole host of reasons, none of which have to be related to rule-breaking. For example, federation with another instance could be suspended temporarily until the other instance does (or doesn’t do) something that is required for technical reasons.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon doubts WW2 Germany⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  America would have likely joined the war regardless of whether or not Japan had attacked.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨This world is cruel…⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  “I have 99,99% uptime I swear!”

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Journalist asking the hard questions⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Georgia and Moldova both are struggling against Russian influences in their elections.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"EU-Linux:" Petition calls for the implementation of an EU-Linux operating system in public administrations across all EU countries⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  LinEUx

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Infintiy Infintiy Infintiy Infintiy Infintiy Infintiy Infintiy Infintiy⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s not true. Infinite doesn’t mean “all”. There are an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, but none of them are 2. There’s a high statistical probability, sure, but it’s not necessarily 100%.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How to improve your Lemmy experience⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Wouldn’t wanna miss “Nazi gets kicked in the balls and cries” tbh.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New mobile features are sh*t these days⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Sometimes it can be used for comedic effect though. Like with “Fr*nce”.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Nobel Prize 2024⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  He’s already given you 5 examples of positive impact. You’re just moving the goalposts now.

  I’m happy to bash morons who abuse generative AIs in bad applications and I can acknowledge that LLM-fuelled misinformation is a problem, but don’t lump “all AI” together and then deny the very obvious positive impact other applications have had (e.g. in healthcare).

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨NASA to Develop Lunar Time Standard for Exploration Initiatives⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes, but at least there they still use “Earth time”, just slowed down. For the moon it gets a little bit more complicated I guess.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨NASA to Develop Lunar Time Standard for Exploration Initiatives⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Time moves at a different speed due to the moon’s reduced gravity. It’s not just the length of a day.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It appenes that my email has gotten on the hands of some scammers with a botnet or something. What do I do?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  RFCs aren’t really law you know. They can deviate, it just means less compatibility.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Don’t believe the hype: AGI is far from inevitable⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  What they didn’t prove, at least by my reading of this paper, is that achieving general intelligence itself is an NP-hard problem. It’s just that this particular method of inferential training, what they call “AI-by-Learning,” is an NP-hard computational problem.

  This is exactly what they’ve proven. They found that if you can solve AI-by-Learning in polynomial time, you can also solve random-vs-chance (or whatever it was called) in a tractable time, which is a known NP-Hard problem. Ergo, the current learning techniques which are tractable will never result in AGI, and any technique that could must necessarily be considerably slower (otherwise you can use the exact same proof presented in the paper again).

  They merely mentioned these methods to show that it doesn’t matter which method you pick. The explicit point is to show that it doesn’t matter if you use LLMs or RNNs or whatever; it will never be able to turn into a true AGI. It could be a good AI of course, but that G is pretty important here.

  But it’s easy to just define general intelligence as something approximating what humans already do.

  No, General Intelligence has a set definition that the paper’s authors stick with. It’s not as simple as “it’s a human-like intelligence” or something that merely approximates it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Don’t believe the hype: AGI is far from inevitable⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes, hence we’re not “right around the corner”, it’s a figure of speech that uses spatial distance to metaphorically show we’re very far away from something.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Don’t believe the hype: AGI is far from inevitable⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Not just that, they’ve proven it’s not possible using any tractable algorithm. If it were you’d run into a contradiction. Their example uses basically any machine learning algorithm we know, but the proof generalizes.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Don’t believe the hype: AGI is far from inevitable⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Our squishy brains (or perhaps more accurately, our nervous systems contained within a biochemical organism influenced by a microbiome) arose out of evolutionary selection algorithms, so general intelligence is clearly possible.

  That’s assuming that we are a general intelligence. I’m actually unsure if that’s even true.

  That doesn’t mean they’ve proven there’s no pathway at all.

  True, they’ve only calculated it’d take perhaps millions of years. Which might be accurate, I’m not sure to what kind of computer global evolution over trillions of organisms over millions of years adds up to. And yes, perhaps some breakthrough happens, but it’s still very unlikely and definitely not “right around the corner” as the AI-bros claim (and that near-future thing is what the paper set out to disprove).

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Don’t believe the hype: AGI is far from inevitable⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Haha it’s good that you do though, because now there’s a helpful comment providing more context :)

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Don’t believe the hype: AGI is far from inevitable⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I was more hinting at that through conventional computational means we’re just not getting there, and that some completely hypothetical breakthrough somewhere is required. QC is the best guess I have for where it might be but it’s still far-fetched.

  But yes, you’re absolutely right that QC in general isn’t a magic bullet here.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Don’t believe the hype: AGI is far from inevitable⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The actual paper is an interesting read. They present an actual computational proof, stating that even if you have essentially infinite memory, a computer that’s a billion times faster than what we have now, perfect training data that you can sample without bias and you’re only aiming for an AGI that performs slightly better than chance, it’s still completely infeasible to do within the next few millenia. Ergo, it’s definitely not “right around the corner”. We’re lightyears off still.

  They prove this by proving that if you could train an AI in a tractable amount of time, you would have proven P=NP. And thus, training an AI is NP-hard. Given the minimum data that needs to be learned to be better than chance, this results in a ridiculously long training time well beyond the realm of what’s even remotely feasible. And that’s provided you don’t even have to deal with all the constraints that exist in the real world.

  We perhaps need some breakthrough in quantum computing in order to get closer. That is not to say that AI won’t improve or anything, it’ll get a bit better. But there is a computationally proven ceiling here, and breaking through that is exceptionally hard.

  It also raises (imo) the question of whether or not we can truly consider humans to have general intelligence or not. Perhaps we’re not as smart as we think we are either.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I make games and this literally happened to me this morning⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Sending a simple transaction like this costs a couple cents though, which they could in theory bill to the developer as well. Setting the threshold at 100 is probably more to accrue additional interest on Steams bank accounts.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"Modding is pretty big" says Baldur's Gate 3 director as over 1m mods are installed in less than 24 hours⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Someone already figured out how to “unlock” the full thing.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"Modding is pretty big" says Baldur's Gate 3 director as over 1m mods are installed in less than 24 hours⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Larian are now the proud owners of the “Daddy Halsin” mod. Truly an asset to their IP!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Concord is going offline beginning September 6th⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  697? Geez that’s… Not great.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Gearbox CEO Randy Pitchford says his hopes on Epic Store were 'overly optimistic or misplaced'⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Sure, but even Epic exclusives aren’t any cheaper than the games on Steam. These savings directly go to the game developer/publisher, not the consumer. This means there’s no incentive for the consumer to switch to Epic other than exclusive games, which is a pretty poor reason to switch away from a well-established platform.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Gearbox CEO Randy Pitchford says his hopes on Epic Store were 'overly optimistic or misplaced'⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s slightly cheaper for developers to put their games on there. But that sucks as a business model, because game prices aren’t any lower so for the end user it doesn’t matter. And on features, Epic just loses every matchup against Steam.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Aaaaah⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah that’s what I meant, thanks for clarifying though.