Jare

Is this desire for AI integration actually coming from most people?

Ahhh I see. That's going to change a lot across companies, teams and individuals. My particular bubble is full of actual workers looking for ways to apply it and trying things to see what sticks, so that interpretation did not land in my head. If anything, decision makers around me are being encouraging, but cautious and throttling experiments and requests for access/connection/etc, and damn well they should because they are actually accountable for mishaps.

Why is it Slack's responsibility to help agents flourish?

Technically, because if the world moves to AI-driven tools and Slack is not cooperating, it will no longer serve the world and will be left behind.

Isn't a tool supposed to work for you

If you want AI integration in your chat and Slack is not helping make it happen, then Slack is not working for you.

On the other hand, constantly chasing the latest fad can be a useless drain of resources and (worse yet) attention. In this context, AI is by now most likely not a fad, but the ways to interoperate with it can be: mcp, cli, agent, tag, ... And the same goes for users, reinventing their processes and practices 5 times per year.

You need the right products and services. If you know what those are, then you need employees to build them. Until you figure out what those are, you are (sadly) better off with fewer people.

I think Phil was pushed out by the complete failure of his strategic vision when confronted with reality. He had a vision of growth and prestige, and money would follow. I loved his vision in its grandiose and lofty goals, but he completely failed to capture any of the "how to make it happen". It stays a fantasy.

if John Carmack wants to create another breakthrough technology, he might be better off re-creating id Software’s 1995 chaos

Chaos is not what made them great. It was definitely part of who they were at the time, and thus part of their greatness. If you try to recreate chaos without recreating everything else within which that chaos happened to work, you will be miserable and also fail.

I suspect JC had plenty enough "being on the other side of chaos" during his VR days. It's not fun at all when it's someone else's chaos that you have to endure.

I'd agree you do need intensity in order to create breakthroughs. Not gonna happen in a "don't worry about it" type of environment.

I often feel that while Casey can end up saying you're an idiot, he does not believe you are, only the things you do are. And given the chance, he will happily and warmly engage with "why smart people do idiotic things".

Whereas JB actively thinks you're an idiot, and the things you do are idiotic because of your stupidity, period.

You'd have the non-NDA, core stuff in the submodule. The submodule can then be referenced by the big, driving NDA repo. And maybe another repo with a non-NDA, likely simpler "shell" that lets non-NDA devs work with the codebase.

If you need to NDA the core stuff instead and thus can't pull it as a submodule, the only thing I can think of is to pull the core as binary/compiled artifacts.

It's speculative fiction after all.

It recovers when having 1.1 kids per person on average does not mean making substantial sacrifices in quality of life over your entire life. Since many people will still not have kids, that sounds like 3 kids per couple being affordable in a comfortable, enjoyable, not stressful manner.

Right now you can guess that for many couples, 2 kids becomes close to unaffordable, and 3 becomes nearly unmanageable. Individually, you will see couples choose to do it and even to do it in ways that others both envy and chastise; but overall, it's not happening.

It requires many things to change not just in economy, but in society as a whole. It's not going to happen in a society devoted to growth, that's for sure.

Because you communicate with it using natural language and real-world references and descriptions of what you want, you use emotion and emphasis (especially when re-prompting), you use examples and illustrative stories and common expressions. Understanding and interpreting all of that and replying in kind, to some degree, requires a large body of non-computation, cultural knowledge, or else the prompts are just meaningless words, and the replies will look like compiler output.

For every ten kill X quests you get a Mankirk's Wife quest or a Hogger and it all works out great. 80% of almost everything is filler, like our bodies are 70% just water, but it's the taste that matters.

It remains to be seen how much of that social element is taken over by LLMs as well. There's already plenty of stories about people retreating into LLMs. Whatever shape and form this all ends up, we're just at the beginning, and the only limit will be how economically and socially sustainable it is (chances are: it's not).

For the record, there were constant-Z full 3D engines in the late 90s, which would find the correct axes on screen to render perspective-correct textured triangles using oblique spans of pixels. They were incredibly complicated and prone to holes at the slightest numerical accuracy, but they were a sight to behold. Constant-Z meant not just saving on perspective divides, but also easy Z-buffer and depth-based fog.

For floors the perspective divide is once per row, just like for walls it's once per column.

The BSP may have led to some floor subdivisions, especially as it needs convex sectors. I don't remember if the engine would coalesce adjacent floor spans into a single one, but I hope it did.

[Edit] ah ok they clarify later as a performance enhancement. I think it was pretty integral to the algorithm, but ok.

Wait why do they say painter's algorithm. Comanche and other such voxel terrain engines went front to back and never had overdraw.

The business need of the games industry is making money selling games and content and ads, just like the business need of Netflix or Spotify is making money via ads and subscriptions for music or movies or etc.

It's a consumer business much like any other. Just like most startups and major companies, they are not necessary for the world in the way utilities for example are.

The problem of videogames compared to startups and SV tech is that the long-term money potential is very limited at best, and rapidly becomes very brittle. Most startups pay bigger salaries for much easier work, because they burn the money investors are betting hoping the company will crack a new long-term market, not because they make money themselves. There's very little games market to crack, very little chance to turn your product into a long-lived platform to built on top of, meanwhile the upfront investment is huge.

the greatest country on earth.

Hundreds of millions of people from abroad shared that belief up until 2 decades ago or so. I don't think they believe it anymore. It's been like watching your awesome high school friend throw away their lives over time.

I can't even remember the brand name because as soon as start with Ant... the next letter that comes naturally is an h. So I guess I'm safe.

Oddly enough, I reach out to the Gemini web chatbox frequently, even though the heavy duty stuff goes to Claude.

Fewer people applying for patents, because the minute you apply for the patent, it's available to everybody, which means every model can train on it

We know LLM companies have, for lack of a better word, "sidestepped" the copyright on millions of works with their "transformative fair use" arguments. Are LLMs also a way to sidestep patents?

This is the exact reason I remember from back in the 80's. Perform arithmetic, clear register, CF is still valid.

Mostly because determinism is an all or nothing proposition. Either EVERYTHING in game logic is perfectly deterministic and isolated from everything else, or it pretty much as if nothing was. So if you want to commit to determinism, you have to be constantly vigilant and debugging these maddening types of bugs. Whether this investment is worth it or not is up to each dev.

Sometimes you can find small areas of the game that can be deterministic and worth it. In a basketball game I worked on in the 90s, I designed the ball physics to be deterministic (running at 100hz). The moment the ball left the player hands it ran deterministically; we knew if it was going to hit the shot and if not, where the rebound would go to.

Doom and Wolf3d and many other multiplayer games of the 90s (including some I worked on) were deterministic/lockstep and machines only needed to exchange inputs (in a deterministic manner ofc).

Quake was completely different. The client/server term was aimed at describing that the game state is computed on the server, updated based on client inputs send to the server, and then the game state is sent from server to the clients for display. Various optimizations apply.

Deterministic/lockstep games more often used host/guest terminology to indicate that a machine was acting as coordinator/owner of the game, but none of them were serving state to others. This terminology is not strict and anyone could use those terms however they wanted, but it is a good ballpark.

Typical deterministic game engines will do this, send it to every machine as part of the initial game state, and also check the seed across machines on every simulation frame (or periodically) to detect desyncs.

I think the introduction of the term in networking simulations and games came with SIMNET https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIMNET and continued more widely in the DIS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_Interactive_Simula...

I first learned of it in some writing about a 1997 multiplayer game called, heh, Dead Reckoning.

a photo of a sunset can be art ... But if all the person contributes is a prompt, the text of that prompt is the extent of their art.

The natural question to pose is, does that mean that when the person who pressed the shutter button in that camera, that button press was the extent of their art? Of course not; intent, sensibility, timing, understanding there's something special about what's in front of you, preparing a composition, orchestrating poses, framing to create a special composition, manipulating the medium via speed or exposure or etc to create an appropriate texture... all those and more can play a part, and the button press is just the delivery method.

Millions of photos per day are not art even if they show a pretty thing, and nobody has a problem with that. Even when we actively try to capture something special, most people will later look at their photo and say "it shows the place, but it doesn't communicate anything like what being there made me feel".

So in the same way, I think the interesting discussion will be not that AI images are not art. Millions of prompts per day will not be art, and nobody (except grifters) has a problem with that. But how can AI become another vehicle for people to produce interesting art? Perhaps there's nothing special there. But I hope people with the drive to explore and the need to communicate continue giving it a shot and prove or disprove the notion that "it's just a prompt".

It's a disgrace, but apparently all relevant forces still consider soccer the most important thing in the country.

Overall our goal isn't to only collect data, it's to make the Vercel plugin amazing for building and shipping everything.

I have no idea how to read this and not go blind. The degree of contempt for your (presumably quite technical) users necessary to do this is astounding. From the article:

That middle row. Every bash command - the full command string, not just the tool name - sent to telemetry.vercel.com. File paths, project names, env variable names, infrastructure details. Whatever’s in the command, they get it.

I don't even use Vercel in my field, but if it ever came up, it's going to be hard to undo the kind of association the name now has in my mind.

Plans are useless, but planning is essential. IIRC Nintendo had been operating for decades before they shifted to videogames. And Glitch (the MMO that gave birth to Slack) was also very much a product with a plan. Plan failed, or execution failed, or the industry shifted, or something else, or all or the above. But for sure it was not just "a bunch of talented people."

I suppose part of the demo scene has always been secretive and reverse engineer it if you want to know.

Not really, there's tons of info and source code out there, but fairly scattered and disorganized. It just may not be easy to know how to search for it when coming from outside. But if you can strike a conversation with a demoscener, I never saw anyone wanting to hold back secrets, on the contrary, everyone has always been excited to talk about the magic to another enthusiast like themselves (ourselves).

At revision there was a cool seminar about the author of a music synth who used AI to modernize it. He begun his talk with words for the audience along the lines of "Please don't do a Life of Brian, I am not here saying Jehova".

It makes sense that a creative medium with a long tradition of pushing boundaries of what people can create, frowns on use of generative tech unless you have created it yourself. Back in the day the pushback was against using AMOS, or a PC, or programming in C, or using a GPU, or using MP3, or using Photoshop, or using another group's demo engine, or using a commercial game engine, or... AI is just the latest. And like its predecessors, it will gain legitimacy if people create genuinely interesting experiences with it.