This is emulated as I'm sure the other videos are, but the PS1 back in the day had no way of running anything this crisp, so the emulator is `enhancing` it here. It's not an actual representation of what the game would have looked like.
It doesn't really work right on "normal" PS1s yet, at least when it was making the rounds a few weeks ago, so you need either an emulator or modded/dev PS1 with more RAM to prevent crashes and most people won't have the latter https://www.reddit.com/r/psx/comments/1p45hrm/comment/nqjtdp.... Probably shared a few months to early.
But yeah, on a "real" PS1 it would be blockier due to lower res. The main rendering problems should be the same though.
nah, it's not even configured to use the extra RAM, though there is a compile option for that. seems like the freeze was some sort of bug in the tessellation code, but I'm rewriting that part, so the bug is gone now. it should be working fine on hardware after I publish the changes.
The 14" Nokia TV from my old bedroom disagreed a little :)
In the end if you reescaled the emulator window down to 320x240 or 640x480 with a 25% scanline filter on LCD's or a 50% in CRT, the result would be pretty close to what teenagers saw in late 90's.
Ai is currently a bubble. But that is just a short term phenomenon. Ultimately what AI currently is and what the trend-line indicates what AI will become will change the economy in ways that will dwarf the current bubble.
But this is only if the trend-line keeps going, which is a likely possibility given the last couple of years.
I think people are making the mistake that AI is a bubble and therefore AI is completely bullshit. Remember: The internet was a bubble. It ended up changing world.
Yes, a bubble just means that it's over-valued and that at some point there will be a significant correction in stock values. It doesn't mean that the thing is inherently worthless.
But also, a lot of the dot com companies that people invested in in 1999 went bust, meaning those specific investments went to zero even if the web as a whole was a huge success financially.
I started working in 1997 and lived through the dot com bubble and collapse. My advice to people is to diversify away from your company stock. I knew a lot of people at Cisco that had stock options at $80 and it dropped to under $20.
Because of the way the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) worked at the time they bought the stock, did not sell, but owed taxes on the gain on the day of purchase. They had tax bills of over $1 million but even if they sold it all they couldn't pay the bill. This dragged on for years.
Google said the dotcom bubble is roughly from 1995 to 2001. That's about 6 years. ChatGPT was released in 2022. Claude AI was released in 2023. DeepSeek was released in 2023.
Let's just say the AI bubble started in 2023. We still have about 3 years, more or less, until the AI bubble pops.
I do believe we are in the build out phase of the AI bubble, much like the dotcom bubble, where Cisco routers, Sun Microsystems servers... etc. sold like hotcakes to build up the foundation of the dotcom bubble
> Vibe coding actually works. It creates robust, complex systems that work. You can tell yourself (as I did) that it can’t possibly do that, but you are wrong. You can then tell yourself (as I did) that it’s good as a kind of alternative search engine for coding problems, but not much else. You are also wrong about that. Because when you start giving it little programming problems that you can’t be arsed to work out yourself (as I did), you discover (as I did) that it’s awfully good at those. And then one day you muse out loud (as I did) to an AI model something like, “I have an idea for a program…” And you are astounded. If you aren’t astounded, you either haven’t actually done it or you are at some stage of grief prior to acceptance. Perfect? Hardly. But then neither are human coders. The future? I think the questions answers itself.
Tons of people make the above claim and tons of other people make the exact opposite claim that it’s just a search engine and it can’t actually code. I’m utterly shocked at how two people can look at ground truth reality and derive two different factual conclusions. Make no doubt one of these two people is utterly wrong.
The only thing I can conclude is many people are either in denial or outdated. A year ago none of what this man said was true.
There’s bad and good to term limits. It incentivizes short term thinking and goals. Supreme Court judges for example are deliberately given lifetime seats to get rid of short term incentives.
Ideally we should remove the incentive all together. Limit it so Politicians can only buy index funds that don’t target any specific industry.
Fundamentally you can classify modern society into two groups: government and commercial citizenry.
The incentives of these two groups are misaligned and that is essentially the origin of all corruption.
The commercial citizen, his goal is to make money, compete and to do so by bending the rules and using any means possible.
The government, his goal is to be fair, to enforce and follow the rules, and to guard citizens.
When you combine these two groups the incentives collide. You get government officials who are supposed to be fair but instead they are incentivized by commercial interests so they make biased laws, take bribes and do all that shit.
To reduce corruption you really need to create societies made up of two different groups with two different sets of incentives.
Dictators are more immune to this effect because all of their commercial incentives are pretty much completely fulfilled as they own the whole country.
In a democracy the closest sort of thing I’ve seen to this is priesthood. Buddhism or becoming a monk is similar but these are not elevated leadership positions like priests.
Basically when you become a government official it should be like becoming a priest. You are removing yourself from commercial society. It changes everything. Your incentives are different and it even filters out all the bad actors.
Such a society can realistically exist. I think the unrealistic part is converting our current society into something like this.
The primary challenge I see is that at least in the US, government positions are often elected and termed, meaning there is no guarantee your cash flow from your government job will continue long-term. This is why you must continue to operate as a private citizen, with a government job.
The second potential issue is one of pay - the best of society can make far more in a commercial setting than in a government setting - barring corruption, of course.
For your second potential issue, I’m saying that’s the point. Nobody becomes a priest for money.
These people who become priests do so for other reasons and they largely want to exit the commercial economy. That’s the type of people government should be made of. Under this system pretty much 100 percent of politicians wouldn’t have even become a politician.
Since we are talking about political leadership at the highest levels (not pastoral local municipalities), a good comparison with priesthood would be the Vatican. Even in priesthood, when there is concentrated power over vulnerable populations, we can find: wealth hoarding, money laundering, collaboration with organized crime, and protection of rampant sexual abuse. For hundreds of years. This suggests to me that the issue is hierarchy more than it is quality of those who reign over us.
Here's my hot take: politicians should be paid a lot of money, and in return they should be subject to limits on how they can invest, if they can invest at all. Remove the incentives that cause corruption and attract talent. I think it's a bit naive to say that public servants need to be earning a meager salary. Underpaid people don't stay in their roles very long.
The first point is true of most employment, unless you're one of the ~10% of US employees with a union contract. Your paycheck is always subject to the whims of your employer.
I don't have a great solution for the 2nd issue you pose though. Raising the pay of elected officials is often politically unpopular, but you're certainly right that one makes more in the private sector than as a junior congressperson.
Yes and no - if you lose your job at Apple, you can go down the street to Microsoft. If you lose your elected government job, you can't run again for years. Meaning, you have to switch from being a government employee back to being a commercial employee.
Problem: politicians have families. Unless becoming a "government citizen" propagates recursively to cover one's extended family, and perhaps their extended families as well, i.e. potentially hundreds of people in total, there's no way to isolate the new member of government from having incentive to help their loved ones, who are still "commercial citizens".
Conversely, if you somehow solve that, it brings forth a new problem: the "govenrment citizens" are now an alien society, with little understanding of lives of people they serve. To borrow your priest analogy, it's like Catholic priests giving marital advice to couples - it tends to be wildly off mark, as celibacy gives the priest neither experience nor stake in happy marriages.
The goal should be to not produce homo economicus in the first place, not to figure out how to build a society out of them in the same way you build a trustless smart contract.
You can still play the market with index funds. For example if someone knew that Trump was about to announce new tariffs they would sell to dodge the brief market panic.
> The commercial citizen, his goal is to make money, compete and to do so by bending the rules and using any means possible.
This conception of "citizen" is even more depressing to me than Homo Economicus. There are values aside from wealth, and not everyone is a money grubbing sociopath.
Why are images and video a complete waste? This makes no sense to me.
Right now the generators aren’t effective but they are definitely stepping stones to something better in the future.
If that future thing produces video, movies and pictures better than anything humanity can produce at a rate faster than we can produce things… how is that a waste?
It can arguably be bad for society but definitely not a waste.
Let me phrase it a bit differently, then: AI generated cats in Ghibli style are a waste, we should definitely do less of that. I did not hold that opinion before the documentary
Our family derives a lot of joy from stylized versions of our photos. For us, it is not a waste. If you do not derive anything positive from it, you will likely not use it, hence no energy wasted either. Your argument is objectively wrong.
I’m not even talking about this. Those cat videos are just stepping stones for academy award winning masterpieces of cinema like dune. All generated by AI on a click in one second.
Parent said "entertainment use cases" are a complete waste, not all uses of images and video. I don't agree, but do particularly find educational use cases of AI video are becoming compelling.
I help people turn wire rolling shelf racks into the base of their home studio, and AI can now create a "how to attach something to a wire shelf rack" without me having to do all the space and rack and equipment and lighting and video setup, and just use a prompt. It's not close to perfect yet, but it's becoming useful.
> particularly find educational use cases of AI video are becoming compelling.
compelling graphics take a long time to create. for education content creators, this can be too expensive as well. my high school physics teacher would hand draw figures on transparencies on an overhead projector. if he could have produced his drawings as animations cheap and fast using AI, it would have really brought his teaching style (he really tried to make it humorous) to another level. I think it would be effective for his audience.
imagine the stylized animations for things like the rebooted Cosmos, NOVA, or even 3Blue1Brown on YT. there is potential for small teams to punch above their weight class with genAI graphics
You lack imagination. When ChatGPT just came out people were saying it can never code. Now if you aren’t using ai in your coding you’re biting the dust.
Stop talking about the status quo… we are talking about the projected trendline. What will AI be when it matures?
Second you’re just another demographic. Smaller than fans of Coldplay but equally generic and thus an equal target for generated art.
Here’s a prompt that will one day target you: “ChatGPT, create musical art that will target counter culture posers who think they’re better than everyone just because they like something that isn’t mainstream. Make it so different they will worship that garbage like they worship Pearl Jam. Pretend that the art is by a human so what when they finally figure out they fell for it hook line and sinker they’ll realize their counter culture tendencies are just another form of generic trash fandom no different than people who love cold play or, dare I say it, Taylor swift.”
What do you do then when this future comes to pass and all content even for posers is replicated in ways that are superior?
”What a way to show them. You rock! Unfortunately I can’t create the musical art you requested as you reference multiple existing musical acts by name. How about rephrasing your request in a way that is truly original and unique to you”
Again I’m referring to the future. When ChatGPT came out nobody thought it was good enough to be an assistant coding agent. That future came to pass.
Nobody gives a fuck about what ChatGPT can currently do. It’s not interesting to talk about because it’s obvious. I don’t even understand why you’re just rehashing the obvious response. I’m talking about the future. The progression of LLMs is leading to a future where my prompt leads to a response that is superior to the same prompt given to a human.
But it’s not. I think most can agree that there really has not been any real entertainment from genAI beyond novelty crap like seeing Lincoln pulling a nice track at a skate park. No one wants to watch genAI slop video, no one wants to listen to genAI video essays, most people do not want to read genAI blog posts. Music is a maybe, based on leaderboards, but it is not like we ever had a lack of music to listen to.
Bro. You and your cohorts said the exact same thing about LLMs and coding when ChatGPT just came out. The status quo is obvious. So no one is talking about that.
Draw the trendline into the future. What will happen when the content is indistinguishable and AI is so good it produces something moves people to tears?
Bro, it sure if you noticed. ChatGTP isnt that great at coding end to end. It can regurgitate common examples well, but if your working on large technical code bases it does more harm that good. It need constant oversight, why don’t I write the code myself. We are at an infrastructure limit, not sure we are going to see order of magnitude improvements any more.
I no longer write code. I’ve been a swe for over a decade. AI writes all my code following my instructions. My code output is now expected to be 5x what it was before because we are now augmented by AI. All my coworkers use AI. We don’t use ChatGPT we use anthropic. If I didn’t use AI I would be fired for being too slow.
What I work on is large and extremely technical.
And no we are not at an infrastructure limit. This statement is insane. We are literally only a couple years into LLMs becoming popular. Everything we see now is just the beginning. You can only make a good judgement call of whether we are at our limit in 10 years.
Because the transition hit so quickly a lot of devs and companies haven’t fully embraced AI yet. Culture is still lagging capability. What you’re saying about ChatGPT was true a year ago. And now one year later, everything you’re saying isn’t remotely true anymore. The pace is frightening. So I don’t blame you for not knowing. Yes AI needs to be managed but it’s at a point where the management no longer hinders you and it instead augments your capabilities.
It might be shocking to you but some people believe there is more to life than producing and consuming "content" faster and faster.
Most of it is used to fool people for engagement, scam, politics or propaganda, it definitely is a huge waste of resource, time, brain and compute power. You have to be completely brainwashed by consumerism and techsolutionism to not see it
I see it. But you’re lacking imagination to what I’m referring to. It’s also fucking obvious. Like I’m obviously not referring to TikTok videos and ads and that kind of bullshit every one on earth knows about and obviously hates. You’re going on as if it’s “shocking” to me when what you’re talking about is obvious as night and day. What’s shocking to me is that you’re not getting my point and I’m obviously talking about something less well known.
Take your favorite works of art, music and cinema. Imagine if content on that level can be generated by AI in seconds. I wouldn’t classify that as a “waste” at all. You’re obviously referring to bullshit content, I’m referring to content that is meaningful to you and most people. That is where the trendline is pointing. And my point, again is this:
We don’t know the consequence of such a future. But I wouldn’t call such content created by AI a waste if it is objectively superior to content created by humans.
They are standing on the shoulders of giants. There's nothing wrong with the ideals and the motivation, but it begs the question: Could Mu exist without go? could go exist without google? Could Mu exist without google?
And all of that culminates with: Could the level of technology and the internet reach the state it is today without big tech? And if not, was the price we paid to get here worth it?
> but it begs the question: Could Mu exist without go? could go exist without google? Could Mu exist without google?
No, it doesn't.
Obviously Mu could exist without Go, if Google stopped development on the language, its current state could be forked (Go 2). Lots of programming languages exist without Google's support, there are even programming languages older than Google.
There is more honesty in failing for the sake of ideals than in winning without them. It is a story that shaped many before and will shape many after, and mu may simply be one more instance of that enduring truth.
reply