> If anyone can trivially create, every creation is meaningless.
Everyone has always been able to trivially create. We live in an attention economy, not a creativity economy. Meaning you can create crap (or ai slop) and people will consume it if you know how to get their attention.
Attention is what gets money. Creation is just fuel for attention. Quality is a part of the equation, but much less important than people generally believe.
Use a private dev repo and do all your dev inside it.
Releases go to a seperate public repo
In the private dev repo use a script which Cherry picks release files from a whitelist that you maintain in the public repo.
Essentially, you define the files and folder structure of a release and that ensures every release looks great with no cruft and it's never going to have .secret.json in or whatever
Hardcoded secrets is seperate and you can have another script to grep for those
Bitcoin was meant to be cash and an antidote to crony finance. Instead, it became yet another mechanism for the financial world to abuse. I'd say thats a pretty heavy failure by any measure.
For me bitcoin opened up the idea that we could maybe do money better. That idea still lives, but not in practice. Yet.
It works amazing for what it was built to do. A decentralized store of value. Moving large amounts of money, with relatively low fees, outside of banks and across national boundaries. It is a resounding success, and continues to be.
Disagree. Its a terrible store of value with a long history of lost money and hacks. For remittanvmce it does have its uses, but as many others have mentioned in practice those uses are for tax avoidance.
Bitcoin was built to be cash and it succeeded at that in the beginning. Until nobody used it. Bitcoin as an idea was practically dead by 2015.
It wasn't built to be cash. It was built to be a store of value, and move that value outside of the banking system.
Claiming it was created for cash is just you inventing a straw man argument so you can knock it down. Ignoring what you reluctantly agreed to - the remittance use case, and that's only the tip of the iceberg. Banks have made money transfer a headache for a long time, and crypto essentially solve it.
Other than that, the value of Bitcoin itself holding, despite billions being stolen. Everyone knows the fundamentals of Bitcoin have held and are holding, and the accidents are human error, not a deficiency in the fundamentals.
Satoshi's whitepaper is titled "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". Cash.
Tax authorities squashed that around 2014 when they started classifying it as a capital asset rather than cash. Nobody wants to track their cost basis and write a tax return line item for every coffee that they purchase throughout the year. Enthusiasts like us will use it anyway - either jumping through the tax hoops, or ignoring them - but most people in functional economies will be good citizens and use the money that their government tells them to.
It's still been a huge success as a store of value, akin to gold but without the problems of physicality. Nothing goes exactly as planned - it's silly to call it dead because it failed to completely live up to its original intent. But it is also ahistorical to claim that it was never intended to be cash.
If they take Neural Rendering far enough, they can get rid of those useless raster and RT cores completely and ship compute and tensor cores only on all their chips
Rasters are far too good for simple textures + simple geometry. Even the best neural rendering works better when it has the bones of geometry, texture, motion and depth to work with. The baseline of spatial coherence you get from a conventional rendering engine is hard to beat with pure neural techniques.
Even in a "neural rendering optimistic" future, I can't see a way in which traditional rendering doesn't survive as a "control channel" that informs what the neural rendering does. To do otherwise would require making the bulk of the game logic neural too.
ppl dont understand sacrefices made and tradeoffs in making high fidelity game engine and them make such a comment. Deferred renderer is likely still most accurate because it actually does the thing faithfully. Forward+ is already stretching it yet much further having lot of cached results etc which make things less accurate. In my mind neural rendering is a step in that direction further. it will suffer accuracy problems only hidden by the fact people dont understand what it should or could look like.
ofc, getting performance is the real problem. I like neural rendering ideas in the sense DLSS can make certain things happen on older machines that were definitely out of scope for deferred pipeline on same machine.
Its like a Boost u really dont want to use if u dont need it.
It might become that CGI will he the place for very accurate rendering more than games, but i sure hope not. (they can easily afford accuracy as they dont need realtime).
games need to slow down a notch on getting better graphics and go for a stabilization and expectation management pass. so people dont expect things that are only feasible through neural rendering techniques. It forces a lot of players to use it. like most AI. fomo or something...
Neural-assisted rendering tech is awesome because it actually exploits the spatial/temporal redundancy of the image stream to save render compute. There are very few techniques that can do it, and none I know can match the neural quality.
Frame 2 is highly redundant if you already have Frame 1 rendered, and even more so if you can supply the motion vectors. If you already have Frame 3 too? It becomes extremely redundant.
And yet, a conventional rendering pipeline would spend as much computation on it as it would on Frame 1. There is no "just reuse the previous work for cheap" primitive in conventional rendering. Every frame has to be built step after step, with the full depth of the rendering pipeline.
The same is true for neural upscaling. Going from 1080p to 4K means pushing 4x the pixels - and for a conventional renderer, that's nearly 4x the work. But a neural upscaling pipeline can exploit the redundancy of image data - and "fill in" the missing detail from a "ground truth" 1080p render, in a way that flies below the radar of human perception. Using cheaper neural operators instead of the full pipeline for it.
Neural rendering is a welcome optimization to conventional rendering techniques, in my eyes. As long as it's implemented right. Which is hard, but not impossible - we've come a long way already.
Also, I think "hard generative AI" is more useful in CGI than in real time rendering. Because real time rendering with user input demands a degree of repeatability, but CGI only has to "look good once". So you can accept the lowered accuracy of a largely untethered generative process with very few keyframes, and pick the "better" (more accurate, if that's what you want) outputs out of it.
> it actually exploits the spatial/temporal redundancy of the image stream to save render compute
This is great until the redundancy no longer exists and you have to rebuild the entire state machine from zero (a humble scene transition or rapidly turning a corner).
>exploits the spatial/temporal redundancy of the image stream
Gbuffers have been using motion vectors forever. For realtime global illumination, techniques like ReSTIR already allow for temporal reuse and spatial coherence.
I just don't see the purpose of replacing the traditional rendering pipeline for neural rendering techniques. It would be one thing if we were constrained on the number of triangles we could push per second, but we're not. The bottleneck is usually elsewhere in the pipeline: animating characters/objects, particle systems, physics updates, etc.
This. This is what they are trying to do. If they can flip the entertainment industry to use neural rendering using their "proprietary" api's then they would have cornered a market from the bottom.
But I thought Nvidia “loves open source” (they don’t) and they are now a supporter for open source and open weight models by acquiring Huggingface? (They don’t actually care)
But the line is drawn when it involves CUDA and any part of their closed source compilers (nvcc).
There are obvious reasons why they are closed source, but it’s becoming pointless since Deepseek have open sourced their AI compiler and compute libraries with DeepGEMM and eventually they will catch up.
I don't think its important. I think these comments are more annoying than ai prose. You are fighting a losing battle and annoying everyone in the process. Adapt.
> You are fighting a losing battle and annoying everyone in the process.
These comments are even more annoying. Sides that are winning don't have to constantly tell their opponents that they're losing. I have no idea why you and so many others seem to have attached their ego to the use of a tool that you feel the need to attack people who have complaints about the output it's often used to generate.
Hacker News is so annoying about this. It really feels like sour grapes that people are shipping cool projects without one of the Y Combinator-type software engineers blessing the project with their handwritten code.
The desktop is a solved problem. Now we are moving into the era of agents using the mouse and keyboard and interacting with the windows manager.
When I see stuff like this, I think it's clear that Linux is not going to be part of that era outside of the CLI. The Linux desktop is never going to recover from this.
Gnome and KDE just keep messing. That's why I stuck to openbox/labwc.
Because, these are not solving problems they are inventing them. Everything that makes Linux great, simply hasn't translated to the desktop GUI. And I can see that will not change. Sure there are things like Niri and thats cool, but for agent use. It's redundant.
We are done with desktops. They will be handed off to ai. Humans will use them less and less. Because they will have better things to do. And likely better interactions. After all a mouse and keyboard while I still prefer it over voice, is still from an era where that was the best we had.
Now, I actually think I prefer tmux in a terminal on my phone on a software keyboard. Over a desktop with mouse and keyboard. As clunky as it is. Because I can use that anywhere, anytime to talk to agents.
CLI is the era and likely gonna be until some more LLM/AI-focused interfaces appear, and they are not gonna look like human UIs. There's a reason all models use bash and code, not a GUI shell, for their internal sandboxen.
Making LLM/AIs use mouse and keyboard makes no sense. They are a human interface tailored to human strengths and limitations, and arguably even for humans CLI is a superior interface for many tasks.
Can't agree with this, there's clearly room for improvement
>Everything that makes Linux great, simply hasn't translated to the desktop GUI.
Do agree with this though. Fragmentation is not ideal for having a consistent UI and a consistent UI is needed to develop muscle memories so it can be used effectively.
>We are done with desktops. They will be handed off to ai.
I don't think that will happen while AI costs dollars per minute of actual use. Being able to use a computer for free will be valuable for a long time still I think.
Everyone has always been able to trivially create. We live in an attention economy, not a creativity economy. Meaning you can create crap (or ai slop) and people will consume it if you know how to get their attention.
Attention is what gets money. Creation is just fuel for attention. Quality is a part of the equation, but much less important than people generally believe.
Here's a legacy document explaining all this since long before ai or the internet was around: https://archive.org/details/TheManualHowToHaveANumber1TheEas...
reply