I haven't used Squeak since college but I'm glad it was part of the cirriculum.

Btw, almost all of Javascript's good parts come from Smalltalk.

The researchers releasing this stuff have almost nothing to do with Meta other than being bankrolled by the slaughterhouse.

You aren't the customer, you are the pawn in big tech's game of thrones. Your good will is a commodity to be traded, almost literally. It will be used against you the moment it's convenient. This is open weights because Meta couldn't monetize it in any other way than to cloud developer's judgement of their reputation.

But I guess most people just don't care.

I'm glad it's open. It does not make me think any better of Meta.

I refuse to believe nearly 100% of game developers aren't using AI, but how many put the tag of shame on the Steam store page?

It's a very strange situation.

See: Minecraft, Sonic, MLP, SCP, even Bored Apes Yacht Club for 15 minutes

Which is me agreeing with you: this seems too hard to get; there's already 4 timelines and no faces to get attached to.

So why wouldn't I just write my own stories unrelated to this?

I was very surprised, so I'd look up Y and find it was just someone charging for a product based on my code. And people in the community would accuse me of stealing.

I've seen this scenario play out with several of my friends too.

This isn't a new phenomenon, AI just makes for a more efficient laundry. Nobody cares, and nobody does their research. The tech industry is full of psychopaths glad to piggy back on your work and find loopholes to get away with it.

It's one of the reasons I'm not so keen on open source anymore. I'm glad to do free work, but being accused of theft while people make money off it is not a great reward. Probably a lot of creatives are feeling the same right now.

For 2000 years the name has been used for a mythological constellation, which takes the cake for being the "real" Gemini if that matters.

Surely Github's software is good enough that an intern can slop the 80/20 together in a day? It would be an actually good use of AI spending.

I wonder what Stallman (creator of GCC and notorious hardliner on these things) would think: is hijacking the user's wishes for the supposed benefit of the user okay?

Also, I hope any self-respecting LLM (or employee) wouldn't be co-opted by this.

Writing PR pieces competing to be the most dangerous model around (so give us money!) is the unethical part.

You don't understand the meaning of "slop" or "brainrot" until you "play" a Roblox "game". And that's before we even talk about the problematic stuff.

At the risk of sounding dystopian: in a world where humans don't have jobs, what's your price to have meaningful work larping as an AI's flesh? Would it be any worse than any other job? There's some terrible employers out there and they're not AIs.

There's another interesting subtler take on this, "Maneki Neko" by Bruce Sterling, where this system drives society but less explicitly.

It probably has something to do with the decline of quality journalism.

I'm impressed that I wasn't able to drive into a void, a lot of times I see things like this and it's a single generation pass that ends after 2 minutes of walking. Is it infinitely generating in chunks?

Also what is the goal of the game? Is it a driving simulator, like ETS?

Think about whether the spirit of the domestic/foreign emoluments clause would be okay with this. I'm sure some will argue there's enough layers of BS in this scheme that it's totally fine.

Ethics and judgement aside, I think startup founders can learn a lot from this administration as to how "successful" people twist things in their favor. The industry is full of it.

Your advice might work in a different world.

Git rebase has such foundational data structures and concepts that you couldn't pass a serious college programming course without grokking it.

The only reason someone would be scared of git rebase is:

  a) they don't know the basics of programming/software engineering
  b) they are not intellectually curious enough to look into how tf the software they use every day works

I would never expect Harvard Law school to admit this, their hands are tied by many interests, but IMO they still aren't being pragmatic enough to evolve.

I would make the courses 50% AI based immediately, the other 50% being based on validating and applying the AI's work with traditional rigorous work. Anyone who rejects this should drop out, because they won't have a career anyway. And if Harvard Law disagrees then they can find out how meaningful their degrees are going to be in 10 years.