From reading the comments, I think a lot of people haven’t seen the show. I highly recommend it. However, you have to remember that this aired on CBS in the age of shows like CSI and NCIS. Therefore, it was made into a high-episode-number, cookie cutter serial crime drama. Every episode follows a similar pattern where the two main characters are trying to prevent a murder. However… if you can make it past that and especially stay focused thru two seasons of that - you will be massively rewarded. The later seasons especially are essentially a fantastic, complex, hard sci-fi show about proxy wars between AGIs using human agents in a battle of control. It’s honestly one of the best shows ever and way ahead of its time
You lose some character moments, but you get to everything the parent post described far quicker. And it’s well, well worth it, especially for those of us working with AI.
PoI asks these incredible questions: how do you design an AGI system that can optimize for saving lives, without it taking a strictly utilitarian view that leads inexorably to it trying to take over the world?
And how do you, as a human trying to get the best of both worlds, keep yourself sane when the tradeoffs are visceral and painful and demand a sacrifice?
You get to know a group of lovable, flawed, but highly competent weirdos who are trying to muddle through this. (With Amy Acker’s incredible performance a particular highlight!)
(It’s also the source of the four-people-pointing-guns-at-each-other-in-church meme, which is delightfully lampshaded in universe.)
> PoI asks these incredible questions: how do you design an AGI system that can optimize for saving lives, without it taking a strictly utilitarian view that leads inexorably to it trying to take over the world?
I don't think the show ever addressed those questions in a meaningful way? Basically there was a "good" AI, and later in the show, an "evil" one. And that was that.
The show did show us a convincing picture of the dangers of pervasive mass surveillance paired with an autonomous system that can sift through all of that data.
I'm surprised none of the other replies cover this:
The "Good" AI is only allowed to draw human attention to an issue - it cannot act, and the humans fundamentally have to (a) figure out what the issue even IS and (b) how to resolve it, basically entirely on their own. Humanity is fundamentally still in charge, the AI just occasionally nudges us to look in the right direction.
Conversely, the "Evil" AI is allowed to do whatever it wants - humanity is no longer in the loop.
And, indeed, the show goes further: they might very well be considered equally moral from some sort of Utilitarian 10,000-foot view. The "Evil" AI wants to save Africa from poverty and pestilence while the "Good" AI is helpless to act on that scale. The moral difference comes down almost entirely to the idea of "minimal intervention" vs "radical revolution"
I'd also add how much the show plays with how thin this moral distance is. Like, there's not a clear line of "well, the thing that makes Evil AI bad is that innocents will suffer at scale..." because there is no real concept of an "innocent" when every one of the team's protectees is themselves a person with shades of grey.
> I don't think the show ever addressed those questions in a meaningful way? Basically there was a "good" AI, and later in the show, an "evil" one. And that was that.
Not super deeply but it does, and even in a way that at the time I find unbelievable (for evil side!) but today is not!:
The creator of the good machine struggle for long time with a major treat the machine present (this IA is more like old-school IA): It cares too much for his creator (to the point that basically find by his own accord the best girl for him!), to the point that the underlying terror what that for saving his creator the machine could destroy the world.
This is the main drive of the creator to reduce his ability to do so, keep communications at minimum, and learn to see the whole humanity with care.
The second drive was to care not just in the abstract of humanity and major problems like terrorism, but "minor" problems like murder (the gov only care for treats to national security) and this is huge late, because the bad IA is too focused on the greater good that means whole society engineering.
With the bad IA the problem is different: The humans WANT it become his dictator and ruler, they WANT that it takes over the world, and they WANT the IA is unbound of human morals and limits and if that means kill many to save the world so be it.
And the stressing point what that is not the opposite of the good IA, is a total different dimension that means was not easy for both IA to "talk about it". The good IA is individualist, politically neutral, minimal interventionist and all around respecting free will, the other was the wet dream of "enlighten philosopher with iron sword".
The show turned out to be 100x more plausible account of AI than I imagined when it aired. One AI becomes aligned through endless training that's a more photogenic version of the kind of alignment training they give frontier models. The unaligned AI gets none of that.
I don't think the second AI is exactly unbound of human morals and limits. It's purely utilitarian, but it's utilitarian calculus is a human one, which is why Greer never questions his support.
> I don't think the second AI is exactly unbound of human morals and limits
Truth, I mean that were the humans that want to be LESS unbound, because why his future tyrant should? (this is the part that look less believable before to me like "who can be so stupid and / or evil?")
> I don't think the show ever addressed those questions in a meaningful way? Basically there was a "good" AI, and later in the show, an "evil" one. And that was that.
It's one of my favorite shows purely because in my view, it did address it but not in a purely binary good vs evil way that many stories boil down to. Mechanically yes, there was one more easily mapped to good ASI vs the other that was mappable to evil but the beauty for me is in the nuance. There were episodes where the benefit to humanity effected by the "evil" ASI was undeniably positive and there are situations where the "good" ASI could see no path forward other than to do things we as humans would consider evil and terrible.
A line that comes up a lot in the show from the "good" ASIs creator is that he did the best he could with the skills he had. This really helped to calibrate a much more inexperienced version of me to the reality that perfection is realistically unattainable and whatever you build and hand to the world will likely have unforseen outcomes. It made me comfortable with making mistakes and using them as opportunities to learn, but it also made me focus more on my intent in undertaking a project and what I wanted the outcome to be rather than the tech I chose to do it.
Towards the end there was one scene where it became obvious to me the writers were trusting the audience to understand more than most shows without having to be spoonfed what's going on: they referenced the Great Filter, and gave no explanation at all.
The "good" AI did not become "good" right away, it was a long, arduous process. And the "evil" AI didn't become evil by itself either. Both had influence from humans, and perhaps that influence is what mattered the most.
Also had multiple failures. There's an extended flashback in one episode where we learn why the "good" AI's creator was so nervous about the whole situation: something like two dozen previous attempts all did various bad things, everything from lying to him about changing its own code to trying to kill him.
Wasn't the good AI essentially only good because it has some strict guard rails that prevented it becoming evil? Of course there was some dramatization, but that's the vibe I remember.
Harold essentially "raised" hundreds of variants of the architecture that eventually became the "good" ASI. Most of them were maligned in some way and several of them tried to escape containment and were willing to kill him when they realized he intended to stop them. When he got one that was going well he started experimenting with it more and connecting it to more of the world and it essentially learned its values from him.
Once he handed it over to the government, he essentially snapshotted the current state and had it reinitialize from that state every 24 hours, to prevent it from developing long-term plans and having alignment drift over time, but it escaped those guard rails creating a company and hiring humans to transcribe a dump of its key memories every day, entering them into the new version of the system.
The "evil" ASI was essentially treated as a god; they put no effort into raising it or teaching it human values because they thought the influence of lesser beings (humans) would only be negative because it was smart enough to discover on its own anything truly useful that humans could teach it, and its followers were more or less a religious cult. And their faith was rewarded: for example, at one point one of its followers deployed a biological weapon, fully expecting that they were sacrificing themselves for the cause, but learned later that they had been chosen by the ASI for that mission because they had a rare genetic mutation that made them immune.
The "evil" ASI wasn't exactly evil, per se, and generally wanted humanity to thrive, but it didn't value human self-determination to the same extent as the "good" AI and was more willing to direct its followers to enact revolution, knowing that in the short term some people would die for revolution after which it would rule the world as a benevolent dictator.
The guard rails and protection for the good "AI" was mostly that it's abilities to perform actions was extremly limited.
It could not, as far as I can remember, take actions outside of passing a SSN of an endangered person to the protagonists for the initial seasons and only lived of information provided by the government surveiallance network. The latter seasons and the bad "AI" mostly changed that especially as the bad "AI" was weaponized with exactly this guardrail missing.
It wasn’t necessarily the guardrails and in fact it did break out of those guardrails and was still “good”…
The actual good vs evil boiled down to a more simplistic view of good person made an AI care about humanity so it’s good even if it indeed broke through every guardrail including completely escaping its containment and going “trust me bro I’m still good” rather early on.
>For seasons 1-2 I highly recommend this watch/skip list
I really dislike this. The The first three seasons have great character moments, flesh out the world and a good sense of humor. I've seen this with more and more shows recently and I don't know why we've started to take the strength of television, that you can take 20+ episodes to really build out characters, and then tell people to watch the SparkNotes version of it.
I first saw an episode a few seasons in, I can’t remember which. It came on in the background while at a friends house and it kept distracting me. I didn’t catch the name of the show and spent years looking for it.
I actually stumbled upon Person of Interest a couple times, but the first couple episodes were so unlike what I saw I figured it was a different series.
Eventually I realized it was the same show, and was able to watch the first couple seasons with baited breath trying to figure out how it became the show in the episode that I glimpsed before… and if it even was as good as I thought it was years prior.
So maybe watch a random episode in the fourth season of you don’t like season one? XD
edit: it was even better than I remember. It became one of my favorite series, probably the one I still think about the most to this day
I remember watching through season 1 kind of in the background as it was a bit boring and then towards the end my head kept turning and going “when did this get good?!”.
Yeah I can’t remember when it got good but I do remember it just kept getting better and better.
I still think about it so often. I haven’t rewatched it because I still remember so much if it given how often I’ve thought about it - I’m waiting to forget forget.
I liked it a lot, I've even rewatched the whole thing recently.
The only thing that bothered me was that some characters were really one dimensional especially Mr Reese, Jim Caviezel's. He's just really a grunty CIA guy in a suit that knows how to fight, not much more complexity to it.
Unfortunately it turns out that is because that is Jim Caviezel. He is apparently a QAnon wackadoo and during the filming of the show he constantly just wanted to do things that "seemed cool" even if they were not the action a hero would take or were entirely out of character.
Along with this it has an amazing soundtrack. Composed by Ramin Djawadi, the same person behind the OSTs of Game of Thrones (now House of the Dragons), Westworld, Pacific Rim and others. Extremely talented and one of my favorite musicians.
I remember that I quit watching the show, some where in season 2 I think, because of the repetitive theme you just described, but I'm glad I stuck through. One of my favorite shows and favorite soundtracks to date; still listen to the Root themes from time to time.
The sound track is exceptional, they also use some really tracks/songs from other artists, that was how I discovered Digitalism and they have perhaps the best use of Johnny Cash's "Hurt" cover I've seen (that episode is one of the best among many great episodes, for the ending).
The later seasons especially are essentially a fantastic, complex, hard sci-fi show about proxy wars between AGIs using human agents in a battle of control. It’s honestly one of the best shows ever and way ahead of its time
100% this. And definitely incredibly relevant to contemporary times.
I haven't seen many episodes of person of interest, but I happen to like the first season of many shows more than later seasons. The first season is often more varied, before the show turns into a soap opera. Eg deep space 9, farscape,
The only flaw in the show is usually they’ve killed more people than they saved by offing goons. Reese by end of season 1 shoots so many hired goons in the head that they retcon that violence in season 2 claiming he has a thing for shooting kneecaps. Something you never see him do is aim at a kneecap.
The show also makes wildly impossible claims like “I invented all social media as a psyop for a human activity honeypot to train the AI. All of them.” Later to also retcon these claims.
In my mind, this show is irrevocably stored in the same slot as the show or shows with "and Greg", Joe Mantegna, and the long sloppy hair sweater vest guy. In a sense I know they are not the same, but a part of me will never know it.
IDK about best shows ever but it was worth watching, especially for a network TV show. I even managed to finish it which is surprising anytime JJ Abrams has sullied something with his presence.
Exactly. Way ahead of its time, very relevant to today. But some of the ways shows were constructed back then may seem dated.
But hey, not unlike reading some sci-fi books from the 60's. They are good, but there are some out of date concepts that can pull you out of the story. You have to accept the time period art was created in.
It was an intentional, near-archaic throwback even at the time HN was founded. Paul Graham has written about it, you can probably still find his blog written about it 20 years ago.
1) When I used ChatGPT for the very first time. I still remember, I asked it: “Write an advertisement to convince people to visit the North Pole.” It rapidly returned a witty, accurate, multi-paragraph text of exactly what I wanted and exceed my expectations. ChatGPT was the beginning of the modern AI boom and I remember being immediately impressed.
2) When I was working at GitHub, the copilot team gave the engineering team early access to copilot in VS Code. I can distinctly remember seeing the chat window in the code editor for the first time. I was probably one of the first people ever to see it. I remember playing with it a bit and asking simple Python questions. I knew that day that StackOverflow was dead and my mind was blown.
3) Big oh shit moment earlier this year that I believe for me started with the Opus 4.6 model + Cursor. The results were noticeably better, hallucinated much less, could solve complex problems with much less intervention. Early 2026 was a turning point for me as an engineer with AI. Throughout 2025, I was still writing the vast majority of my code by hand like I’ve always done- that is not that case in 2026.
> You better maximize engagement or you will lose engagement this is a red queen’s race we can’t afford to lose! Burn all the social capital, burn all your values, FEED IT ALL TO MOLOCH!
Curious if Meta will ever recoup its investment into VR/AR? A quick Google search indicates Meta has invested north of $100 billion into this tech. The public just doesn't seem that interested in VR/AR. A very small percentage of my family and friends even own a VR headset. Most people are busy and don't have time to strap on a headset when they get home. If gaming / "the metaverse" is the cornerstone of VR, why are almost all gamers playing on a PC or console? And on the AR front, has anyone actually seen anyone out-and-about wearing those Meta AR glasses? Anyone remember Google glass? What happened to Magic Leap?
It's unsual, if you would have asked me 15 years ago- I would have told you _absolutely_ VR/AR would be huge. It just hasn't been the case. People don't want to wear headsets and there's nothing that the AR glasses can do that my phone can't. The whole thing has become a money blackhole.
I got caught up in the hype a bit. I went to meet-ups, tried the tech and was blown away by VR.
Here’s the thing, though. To experience VR properly, you need to be able to walk arbitrarily through space. And houses are small. It sounds stupid and people have proposed solutions like rolling floors, but it’s actually not stupid. Sometimes a technology has a fundamental flaw (hello, there, hallucinating LLMs) which really does mean most of the value is unrealisable.
VR needs neural interfaces. Until then it’s going to be a minor sport.
The short term solution to this is AR. You can walk arbitrary distance subject to physical constraints you can navigate. This will drive the industry forward until neural interfaces are ready. Apple are right with Vision Pro, it’s absolutely amazing for a first product, but like the Newton they are just miles ahead of the curve, too far ahead.
* fortunately for AI companies, hallucinations simply require conceptual developments to fix - they’re not a hard constraint. They just need to stop overfocusing on scale.
For me it's been pixel density. The second I can replace my monitor with it and be able to read small text without my eyes hurting I'll buy the nicest one they make.
Unfortunately I've been waiting for 10 years now and it still hasn't happened :(
Trying to play some 3D piloting games (Flight Sim, Elite Dangerous, etc) that had cockpits with text to read on displays also proved disappointing. Had to lean really close to be able to read it.
There are more issues than just the lack of physical movement while you experience visual movement being uncomfortable and disorientating.
Most people who play video games do so as a leisure activity. It works because it allows you to be put into a world that requires little physical exertion - just eye/hand coordination. You don't need to to use your legs to jump in a video game. You don't even need to have legs.
In the vision of VR you're selling, it requires getting up and doing a lot of physical movement. The bulk of most gamers just want to play their game after work or school and relax. Most of my friends feel the same way about VR as they did when I was young and wanted them to play with the NES power pad when I was younger.
There are better, more entertaining options available on the 2D screen that don't require much physical movement. In fact, I'd say that anything other than eye/hand movement distracts from game play. "Jumping" in the video game isn't fun because you actually have to jump, it's fun because you don't. And that's a feature that appeals to people who will never be appealed to VR.
With flight simulators, improvements in haptics to the point where you can wear gloves to feel all the flight controls in VR will be incredible (one day?).
if by "conceptual developments" you don't mean "a total paradigm shift to some non-probabilistic architecture that hasn't been discovered yet", then yes, they are a hard constraint of current LLM architectures
It's just that AR/VR is not interactive. Sure they try to simulate interactivity through buttons or hands tracking but its lame and fake.
Even when have indistinguishable from reality visuals the illusion falls apart the moment you try to touch it. The fidelity through buttons is rudimentary and through hand tracking is non existent. The suspension of disbelief isn't there, humans fingers are incredibly sensitive and dexterous and we are trained whole life all the time to know how things feel. AI/AR isn't going to have any success without solving that.
The VOID VR was the greatest fusion of VR + reality. CAD-mapped laser tag warehouses while wearing a VR headset and backpack computer. Near-perfect immersion. COVID sadly killed it. Was a beautiful thing - so happy I got to try it out. Even ended up buying a lot of the defunct equipment off eBay.
That tracks with how great it feels when you match the positions of the virtual and real wheels when simracing.
Peeking under the lenses you see your own arms seamlessly continue into the virtual ones and feels like you are grabbing the virtual wheel.
Maybe? AFAIK there are many people trying to solve this and gloves is one of them.
I think it can work, think driving and flying simulators where you have realistic input for the machine like a driving wheel with feedback - thise can be quite convincing.
I still strongly believe that all day to day computing happening via AR is nigh inevitable. We have become so accustomed to computing happening via small rectangles, fixed in place, happening with computers that have no clue about the real world we occupy, or of what’s happening now, that the idea of computing sharing our world with us seems six leaps removed and itself unmoored in reality. I think someday within our lifetimes we’ll look back at the way we compute today as a primeval relic and wonder how we ever thought of it as computing at all.
I bought a PS4 VR maybe 2-3 years ago, when it arrived I was excited to try it on, and realized I needed to also buy the camera. I did not think it was worth another 5 minutes on amazon to buy the camera, so the thing just sits there collecting dust. No interest at all. Then there is the price. I pass by a store, and Oculus and friends are $300+. I have bought other things that cost more, like iPhones. Still not willing to buy a VR headset for that, especially when I do not know what I will be getting. I am sure I will be disappointed by the limited ecosystem.
I did buy a Meta Quest 3 and was impressed by its overall quality. I even tried a couple of games, and watched maybe half a movie, and some 3D videos of remote places.
But I never use it. I don't really see the point. It's heavy on the head for no real benefit.
I'm kind of happy I have it though. I open it every six months to see if there's anything new. I'm going to try this Hyperscape just in case...
It takes an evolution for humans to adopt VR. We are not hardwired to wear an headset or glasses at all times. VR does have some nice use cases, mostly in industrial/enterprise setup, but not in day-to-day life.
You nailed it. Im a tech nerd by day, rather occasional casual gamer, and besides that - I dont want to interact with more technology than needs be. The thought of having additional nonsense overlaid on my view is actually nauseating.
It could make sense selectively during construction, mining, etc, but even then its a sometimes thing and it needs to be completely unobtrusive. Meta dont seem to be aiming towards or catering to this.
Yeah thats the thing. I believe there is a mismatch between the firm and the tech being pursued. As a result, Meta will make some strange decisions that otherwise couldve been done differently to yield a viable product.
I think a lot of people are too wrapped up in nostalgia for science fiction to realize VR and AR aren't as objectively superior to the paradigm of screen and input as they assume, and that these technologies will only ever be niche. And that's fine. I have an Oculus Go collecting dust and an Oculus Quest I only use one app for and I doubt I'd ever be willing to get a third headset. The gimmick of being able to turn my head in a virtual space just isn't worth it.
VR probably hit its peak with VR Chat, and AR probably hit it with Pokemon Go. Just as we're never getting the Jetson's future with Rosie the Robot, but we do get roombas, we're never getting the cyberpunk future where everything happens in VR, but we do get furries hanging out in digital Taco Bells.
> we're never getting the cyberpunk future where everything happens in VR, but we do get furries hanging out in digital Taco Bells
The interesting thing is that we kind of already knew this; 20 years ago, Second Life had a very similar "hype cycle->some niche groups kinda like this" story. I'm unsure why people thought that "like second life, but you have to strap this thing to your face" would necessarily be _more_ appealing.
I don't see too much appeal to AR, but VR has a very fun/enjoyable immersive aspect to it.
One of the things I very much hoped for was to be able to "hang out" with friends who have grown geographically distant in a space that felt more our own.
But I don't think that makes it truly "huge" in a mass market way unless it's at a very affordable price point.
There are some pretty cool AR demos out there too, but for me they're not worth wearing the headsets I've seen.
The only killer app for me, when it comes to VR headsets, would be flight sim, and I have been too busy for the last year to even sim on my 4k monitor, so I haven't taken the headset plunge yet. Still, that's the only thing I can think of that would make sense for me. Maybe there are others.
It is a good use for VR, but I also imagine most serious flight sim users already use TrackIR which seriously hampers their adoption to VR. Im not sure if I was offered one or the other for free if I would even choose a VR headset despite being a much higher monetary value because TrackIR already works so good, doesn't restrict vision from my actual controls, and doesn't isolate me from other things that might be going on around me.
VR is in the trough of disillusionment phase right now, but I can almost guarantee you we'll see a slow but steady climb from here. The big question is if Meta will continue to invest into the space or if other smaller players will fill its place.
What's different is that Meta has sold 20+ million headsets, and there is a decent sized user base, albeit much smaller than people expected 5 years ago. This is not a dead technology just because you don't use it. In 2023 Meta Quest had roughly 6.3 million monthly active users.
So, in some sense not a lot, but it has a decent foothold of people using it often. It's clearly different from VR in the past where there were literally a handful or maybe on the order of hundreds of headsets in the world. VR now also has a ton of different niches and use cases beyond games. I also think a comparison with gaming console hardware is more apt than comparing it to something like PC or smartphone sales.
There are kind of two ways to look at VR. One is "no-one wants this because it is a bad idea". The other is "this is a good idea, but no-one wants it because the tech is grossly inadequate". _If_ option two is correct, then maybe eventually it sees adoption, as the hardware finally gets good enough. Personally I suspect that option one is correct, but I've been wrong about this sort of thing before and I wouldn't be _totally_ shocked if number two comes to pass.
(There's also number three: "this is magic and will change everything, and you'll do all your socialising and work via VR", but this is just bubble-pumping nonsense and I doubt anyone _actually_ believes it. And option four, which is like option two except that "good enough" is essentially technically impossible.)
I bought a zfold 7 about a month ago, it has been without a doubt the coolest new device I have purchased in many years. It's unbelievably thin, if you use it in normal phone mode you can't even tell that it's a fold. I have installed so many fun apps. I downloaded Mihon which is a manga/comic reader and I've read the first 10 volumes of Berserk, it's such a great experience reading manga on the fold screen. I also got NetherSX2 which is a PS2 emulator, it's insane to me that a phone can emulate PS2 games perfectly, I played thru a good bit of Kingdom Hearts one night with a Switch controller connected via bluetooth. I also downloaded ReadEra and have read some of the Malazan fantasy series on the device. I can play Oldschool Runescape while watching YouTube videos at the same time. I have RVNC viewer and have used it to connect to a Linux system downstairs to manage one of my systems. The split keyboard on fold mode is super easy and fast to type on, I'm using it right now to send this message. The web browsing experience is great because unlike iPhone, I can have uBlock origin and desktop mode websites look great on the fold screen.
Having both a phone and tablet in your pocket is phenomenal. I don't think I can go back at this point. Apple knows this, which is imo why the rumor is the new iPhone 17 will have a fold option for a higher price. If you think it's gimmicky, you haven't tried it yet.
I was using urxvt for about 10 years and then I switched to alacritty about 5 years ago. Have had the best experience with alacritty- runs on all my systems, super fast, config is great. That being said, I’m gonna give ghostty a well-deserved test drive. I like it a lot so far. Love seeing more zig apps!
Urxvt causes(d) my laptop running Ubuntu to sporadically but spontaneously power cycle, presumably due to bugs in the graphics drivers. Iirc it happened under Nvidia and Intel.
reply