I wouldn’t call it realistic, sand gets stuck in the air, stones don’t rotate, and there’s quite an uncanny valley effect based on angles.
Still a cool demo of what is possible, even though I get 10fps or something on a iPhone 15 Pro
didnt encounter the stucking issue but agree with the overerall point, the sand gets a sort of 'build-up pressure and bounce back' effect which breaks the immersiveness for me, otherwise cool
To writ, parsing massive LiDAR datasets to spot repetitive, distinct geometric patterns is something that AI excels at. They are not subject to facial pareidolia like humans are - they have no hard-wired weighting to impose meaningful patterns onto random or ambiguous visual stimuli.
But they do what you tell them, so be convincing enough and the patterns will emerge, I think even with something silly like "be creative, imaginative and ignore science, in the following images find any resemblance of a face, no matter how far fetched" will give all kinds of silliness.
I mean try it, but their internal prompts usually restrict them from spouting disinformation on purpose, so even if you got a response like that, it would finish with something like this is of course all in the context of our roleplaying situation and has no bearing on irl results. Also the sycophancy in general has been improved greatly, they don't agree with you on everything anymore
To paraphrase Hitchens, anything tenuously asserted by agentic AI can be easily repudiated by agentic AI. The knife cuts both ways, and agentic output tends towards Occam's Razor as its defined edge.
Now will we have a TempleOS style burning bush that goes beyond the markov-chain limitations of Terry Davis' era? Very likely. Will it impact contemporary discourse? About as much as the Astrology and Homeopathic mobile apps.
(N.B. I am conscious that Homeopathy is a $14bn market segment in the US. Notwithstanding, given that the segment is based on magic-water-'science', I think the point remains.)
Barriers going away means you get a lot more at the bottom and middle of the pack, but a game is more than the sum of its parts, and as long as LLMs do what you tell them, you need to have real talent to make good games.
Was this game fun for you? For me it certainly was, and ultimately that's all that matters to me. And that's why I said I'd classify it as a top-tier game because IMO most games that get released, slop and 'professional' alike, simply aren't fun. Even on these forums there's plenty of people posting thinly veiled hopes of going viral along the lines of 'I spent 5 years to fail with my game' when as lovingly hand-crafted as the games may have been - they invariably just weren't any fun to play!
In any case, it being "extremely far" from the top would just imply I should be in endless bliss with the current state of things since if I find this game quite fun then higher tier beat-em-ups would be just the most incredible thing I've ever played in my life. That has certainly not been my experience.
I found it stiff and weird. The "art" is screaming Saturday morning cartoons which I successfully evaded since even as a kid. TMNT aren't nostalgic for me because by that time I was like 12 and didn't even think to interact with that baby stuff, and I wouldn't have dreamed it would be put on the test by adults later. And art and charm is all that could have saved this, because as a game, if you replaced the art with wireframe hitboxes, it's just nothing.
Double Dragon I have fond memories of, and this is why this one bored me after 30 seconds, because it's so meh compared to even the worst game of that type of that era that I played.
Where do you get the idea that Anthropic is profitable from? Is this another one of those “if we remove everything that is a cost, then revenue means profit”-scenarios?
Nothing about intent. A lot of bugs are correctly implemented but do the wrong thing. Actually in my experience these far outweigh the classic code bugs when it comes to web apps.
I think that is the interesting problem to solve (and would have the highest user impact)
At the risk of getting pedantic, should those really be considered bugs?
I think it's important to distinguish between "good design implemented poorly" (bugs) and "bad design implemented well" (design flaws) because the fixes are vastly different. I'm well aware that in a user's head, "it doesn't do what I want" gets filed under "bug," but those of us building the thing can benefit from being more precise.
What sort of bugs do you have in mind? From our perspective there are many kinds of bugs that inhibit UX (and AX) but they can be subtle issues like poorly designed flows. It's hard for an agent to notice or understand these but they are serious problems and we're trying to surface these more readily.
OK thanks, agents definitely like partial implementations like that. When this impacts users we need to be able to observe that and see the bug, then track it back to its source. Weird logic bugs like this benefit from having a good debugger to untangle things and get to the root of the problem, especially when there is tons of code.
My fridge beeps loudly when something is wrong, and it has no connectivity to any network. Exactly how a fridge is supposed to be, why are we reinventing fridges…
Astra writes a lot of security bugs too, the upside is that if you also use it to review the output it will find a lot (most?) of them.
This is one of the least talked about and most useful features in any harness I would say, the review feature. I have never not found issues (either security or implementation) running it, no matter the code base or language.
Most, not all, are just delivering more bad stuff faster. I personally also think I deliver more good stuff with AI, but the products I use are just getting worse daily it feels like. Just the other day I noticed Slack had installed some disgusting menu bar icon for their AI bot, without asking, just to take a fresh example of this.
I wouldn’t say poor, fishing was the backbone for over a thousand years and generated its fair share of wealth, so did timber. Seafood is still second after oil, even if oil of course is much bigger.
Norway benefits greatly from being a massive country with a small population and enormous natural resources. This makes governing far simpler compared to many other countries, and the culture is of course vastly different too.
I’ve only ever been to Lofoten but it was lovely, I think that’s how humans are supposed to live, too bad I can’t afford to move there.
Sorry, I have that image due to, just the image of a "poor" fishing country. Now we envy you and I heard all my life that we in Sweden are Norways poles/polacks due to cheap labour from Sweden.
That said we in Sweden where extremely poor too, see the famous book "Utvandrarna" for how it could be so miserable that people left.
Now we are the ones causing issues - "det svenske tilstander"
Well, I say "we" but these are not the Kalles Kaviar looking people. It could get to that point though...
This was the case at a previous job. Someone read some "state of devops report" or similar BS where they wrote that good teams ship often. They took from that it was shipping often that made good teams...
And as a result we had some contrived deploy process on Slack with buttons and emojis and what not to deploy.
Not a single customer saw any value out of this of course, because shipping something is not the same as shipping something valuable.
So I guess releasing 60 times in a working day proves that you're part of a good team /s
reply