While the initial incident is more akin to a biological outbreak than an actual explosion, the possible consequences on the table do indeed include eventual nuclear annihilation.

AI is a tool, and it won't be long before the damage caused by its improper use affects real human beings. These were warning shots.

The most absurd part is that everyone agrees, governments and AI companies included, that the scale of the potential damage and the long-lasting effects of losing control of AI should not be underestimated. Yet, at the same time, they downplay this incident, which somehow makes their behaviour even more reckless than it already was.

It's like they're tinkering with a world-ending nuclear bomb, and it accidentally blows up a small facility. "Damn, that was close. Good thing it was just a contained blast, huh?" And then they go straight back to tinkering with it, none the wiser. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if it did already go off, and they are covering it up.

Completely irresponsible behaviour.

It's something that's been bugging me for a while: once we reach a "good enough" small model, and qwen 3.8 27b is already getting damn close to it, does it make sense to just bake weights and everything directly into an ASIC, and use that for highly optimized inference? AFAIK only groq and cerebras are moving in that direction, and only to be providers themselves... It would be a dream to buy one for <$1k.

Obviously it's not purely ego driven (if at all), so I wonder how the financial aspect plays into that narrative.

I suppose the fact that it sold so much throughout the years gave them enough runway to actually work on it with no worries? And I suppose that people would be skeptical of a new game launch by this studio, thus dooming them to work on NMS for eternity... we'll see how Light No Fire's launch will do.

While I do enjoy coding, building things is what was rewarding, not actually laying down brick after brick after brick after brick.

I've done that for 10+ years. The fact that I don't have to do that anymore is a relief that cannot be overstated. I only have to check on the code that The Ideal Intern produces while I focus on what actually matters, and that is: Building The Thing.

It's all about how you use it and how careful you are with it, and the fact that today there are people IN THE FIELD that still question this baffles me.

In my experience, the most they dare is to suggest better alternatives, which is the polite and useful version of telling me something is a bad idea.

But in general, they do not tell you "this whole idea is complete bogus". So far, only Gemini did. Don't even remember what about.

But in a physical robot? Yeah, that thing is going to punch me in the face, eventually. Or worse.

(@Nintendo: this is a joke, you can put down the rifle)

The "instantly" refers to user input: clicking a button, typing, or moving the mouse was as fast as it could possibly get because of how close the OS was to the bare metal, with no fluff bogging down the experience. Simply put, there were no wasted frames, as there were none to waste. Nowadays, at the very least, you get a couple millisecond of latency. That was not the case here.

Also, this is a machine from NINETEEN EIGHTY F//G FIVE, and it's still probably faster than your average PC running Windows 11.

Aside from the loading times, the thing is incredibly fast. I invite you to try one if you have the chance, as words don't make it justice. I can't think of anything today that comes close to how instantly it responds to user input, even iOS feels sluggish in comparison.

It had only a few kilobytes of memory, a bunch of CPU cycles and a dream, but By God they made damn sure not to waste a single instructions and it shows. We need to go back.

Still, while "it's AI generated crap" and variations thereof are all perfectly valid reasons by themselves, they are way, WAY too shallow for the average guy who looks at both versions and prefers the AI one because it looks "better". I would probably sound crazy and/or pretentious trying to explain to him why I prefer the badly drawn one to the perfect AI generated one, I do not know exactly why myself.

For example, at my local preschool there was a wall flyer with information about what to bring the swimming pool. It had the most crudely drawn fishes and crabs and seahorses that I had ever seen. It was clear that whoever drew that had no prior experience with anything even remotely resembling a pencil, and by no metric one would define those drawings as "good". Maybe it was drawn by a janitor, or a teacher with too little time to waste on a drawing? Regardless, and I cannot emphasize it enough, I VASTLY preferred it to the new AI generated one they put up, with its generic AI generated marine life that one would get if they just typed "sea life" in the prompt. I can't tell you why myself, if you were to look at both versions side by side, the AI one is undoubtably miles better. But... it just feels wrong. Off. Out of place. I know I sound like a luddite, but it just doesn't look right. It's uncanny, and I really can't explain the reason. It's like seeing a perfectly drawn, realistic, anatomically accurate human being in an otherwise cute and cuddly children's cartoon. It just doesn't fit in with everything else. It's a preschool, it's supposed to be filled with "bad" drawings, you know?

And don't get me started with the time they put up AI filtered group photos. I almost had a meltdown, and I'm (mostly) pro AI.

How serious does it have to get before "oops AI did that not me" stops being a valid defense and we start looking into it?

Because I'd bet my life that if I asked ChatGPT to fix a bug that one of my clients reported, and the model fixed it by outright k*lling the client IRL, I'd be held liable instead of anyone at OpenAI. Just a hunch.