> Then human work is changed to figuring out new things and the AI solves all old things, that seems much more fun than most white collar work today.
But it's not fun to be figuring out new things all the time. Some amount of routine work is necessary to 1) exercise mastery (feels good), and 2) recover energy. This is why a lot of people find agentic coding exhausting and less fun, you're basically always having to be creative (what's the next feature?) or solve the hardest 5% of issues the LLM can't handle.
I understand that, but it seems like even the MVP "shitty" flagellum would require many mutations that individually have no benefit. But I suppose with enough generations/parallelism you get enough stacking of useless mutations to reach the useful ones.
I think he's saying, random mutation wouldn't produce all required components at once. One mutation gives you a bit of a flagella, another gives you bit of a nose, but how does the flagella mutation survive to coexist with the nose mutation that makes it useful.
I suspect the answer is that having flagella without a nose is still better than having no flagella. If so it suggests evolution isn't good at accessing groups of mutations that aren't individually beneficial.
> nobody at this point expects a 13B parameter model to succeed with the same accuracy at the broad range of tasks supported by what may be a 1T parameter model
I think a lot of people believe exactly that. To take one example from the "We Have No Moat" essay:
"It doesn’t take long before the cumulative effect of all of these fine-tunings overcomes starting off at a size disadvantage. Indeed, in terms of engineer-hours, the pace of improvement from these models vastly outstrips what we can do with our largest variants, and the best are already largely indistinguishable from ChatGPT." - https://www.semianalysis.com/p/google-we-have-no-moat-and-ne...
Unity and Unreal both support Android and PBR so I don't see an obvious benefit to being able to use this alternative renderer. Because of the license and the fact that it's a newish codebase written in simple C++ I can see it being popular as a starting point for in-house engines.
I think the interactive diagram is the most important artifact here, rather than the visual prototype. The synchronized combination of the two is even better.
This kind of thing isn't usually implemented as a formal state machine in "real" code, so even if designers were capable of writing the "real" code, they wouldn't be able to automatically generate an interactive diagram the way this thing can.
They use a gamma distribution which has more probability density near the origin, which causes samples around the origin and interpolations to be more like real input.
Your app looks amazing. I love how you can leave handwritten notes next to the audio control nodes. I know these kind of hybrid sketching/programming environments have been a HCI dream for a long time now but I haven't seen it look as good as in your demo.
What mattered was seeing the value of the capability, not predicting any particular applications
How can you separate the value of a capability from its potential applications? Surely he doesn't mean scientific/intellectual value so.. how else can a capability have value?
Sounds really interesting - post it on HN whenever you publish?
I like the idea of VR/AR user interfaces where light rays bend interactively according to controller/gaze position. So for example by looking at the edge of an object the light rays bend so you see behind it. Or by looking off into the horizon the entire landscape folds over like in these photos. Possibly vomit-inducing and useless, but I still want to try it.
For non-games I agree. I'm working on a VR design tool and I've given myself the constraint that user are sitting in a swivel chair with elbows on armrests most of the time. I'm hoping that it'll give enough room to do interesting stuff without straying too far from keyboard-level laziness.
For games, I've been playing VR archery since I got the Vive almost a year ago and I still love it. It is tiring but so are traditional sports and people do those.
A lot of us are working on 3D interfaces for design tools, but the difficult part seems to be making it bearable for longer sessions (hours). Some examples:
"The final thing I’ll say is that government will never run the way Silicon Valley runs because, by definition, democracy is messy. This is a big, diverse country with a lot of interests and a lot of disparate points of view. And part of government’s job, by the way, is dealing with problems that nobody else wants to deal with.
So sometimes I talk to CEOs, they come in and they start telling me about leadership, and here’s how we do things. And I say, well, if all I was doing was making a widget or producing an app, and I didn’t have to worry about whether poor people could afford the widget, or I didn’t have to worry about whether the app had some unintended consequences -- setting aside my Syria and Yemen portfolio -- then I think those suggestions are terrific. (Laughter and applause.) That's not, by the way, to say that there aren't huge efficiencies and improvements that have to be made.
But the reason I say this is sometimes we get, I think, in the scientific community, the tech community, the entrepreneurial community, the sense of we just have to blow up the system, or create this parallel society and culture because government is inherently wrecked. No, it's not inherently wrecked; it's just government has to care for, for example, veterans who come home. That's not on your balance sheet, that's on our collective balance sheet, because we have a sacred duty to take care of those veterans. And that's hard and it's messy, and we're building up legacy systems that we can't just blow up."