I’ll always support those who are willing to take such risks where I am not.

I tend to "graze" on games by regularly(ish) playing for usually not more than an hour. I often swap between games and don't finish many of them. That's never really seemed like the point[0] any more than the idea of "completing" chess or skiing[1]. A tedious, unskippable tutorial level or spending hours early on grinding or subsisting with basic tools/weapons/mechanics before you get the good stuff is what kills a game for me.

So the question for me is how much boredom before it gets fun rather than whether I will eventually lose interest before I finish it. That's a given (I predictably didn't finish Braid or The Witness, I like both).

[0] And besides, like TV series, it just seems like such a lot of time! A game has to be very short or _really_ good, which means both engaging and fun mechanics and a great story, for me to make it to the end.

[1] Ok that's a lie, I definitely intend to complete skiing

If Apple can charge 30% to gate-keep mobile payments, we can surely charge that for the total information output of humanity.

I'd love someone (maybe even Bigscreen themselves) to make something like a standalone version of the Beyond 2. I'd be happy with some kind of puck or whatever for the compute and/or battery just to have it be that lightweight.

I hope the openness of the OS leads to lots of cool 3rd party options. I’d love to see a standalone headset the size of the Bigscreen Beyond 2, and I’d also be much more willing to pay $3000 for a premium VR/AR device that runs Linux than an Apple or Meta device.

Maybe that means I want one on a technicality. I suppose the big fold out screen would be useful at time if the device isn't too chunky...

Already powerful and wealthy organisations/institutions/people leveraging somewhat powerful AI seem far more dangerous to me than the "AI decides to kill everyone" scenarios.

And therein is my problem: OpenAI and Anthropic are organisations like that, run by people like that, and they operate in collusion with others also fitting that description. The call is coming from inside the house.

The most likely way that AI creates a disaster is due to the ambition, greed, hubris, and naivety of these people who think they understand the risks[0] better than anyone else. I firmly believe they do not.

The first step to managing these risks is for the "frontier labs" to be willing to not just collaborate but meaningfully give up some of their power and control.

[0] by which I mean not just thinking about how AI might develop but also what's physically possible, how the AI might interact with the world, and how people/societies/organisations/governments might react and respond.

I’ve recently re-played games I enjoyed in the 90s.

I listen to my dad’s old vinyl records.

Why the hell should my game purchases evaporate after some arbitrary and unpredictable amount of time?

I don't know how common this is in retail banking but I'm happy to see Monzo do it.

So programming "ended" if it's no longer such a dominant profession, even if plenty of people still do it as an art/craft/hobby and some of them even get paid to do so?

Doesn't sound like the "end of programming" to me, more a reduction in the number of programming jobs. One that if anything is overdue - many developers today get paid to do jobs that shouldn't need to exist even without AI.

I don't really agree

Information itself should be free, authors deserve the right to monetise other ways (merch, physical media, exhibitions/shows, etc.) but society should pay artists and creators to do their thing[0]

Not everything needs to be a business, and I think art is one of those things

[0] I don't know much about it but maybe Ireland's Basic Income for the Arts scheme is a model. I think some other European countries do similar-ish things, too

Maybe you can own (some) things, you can't own information

Not sure what that says about me or the LLM but I guess I shouldn't worry too much about watermarking ruining the outputs…