Another alternative is to make it like a turn-based Scorched Earth (Mother of all games), where you can either

1. launch asteroid size projectiles across star systems in a field of stars and black holes to it each other.

2. launch projectiles that then place black holes (perhaps either by timeout or signal--taking into account the speed of light!) to change the field.

It's a good start!

I was working at Company X around 2013, and we had a Rails ecommerce site. Trivial in the algorithmic sense. Had a contractor that pushed a change that somehow made everything crawl. When we did profiling together, it turned out he had written an O(n^2) algorithm when looking up country codes or something. Sometimes, there's no off-the-shelf library, and it's the minimum a dev should know not to do.

I'm not saying it should be a maniacal focus, but it should be taken into account. Of course, it's with judgement. We get shittier and shittier software if it's not taken into account at all.

Met Tom once, and he was a cool guy, but he didn't believe in the stuff that they taught in CS. He had a long rant about how learning string diff algorithms were useless. Anyway, it turns out later on, he went back to college to finish his degree. When his classmate(s) found out who he was, this one kid was so excited to sit next to him. "Do you know who he is?!" he would exclaim to his professor, to Tom's embarrassment. I wonder if he had to do string diff algos when he went back to finish college.

I've also been designing a APL/BQN-like language that uses Korean as a way to compact and compose the meanings of the operations.

> If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written...And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows.

Basically, reading writing (without instruction) will only make people seem like they know stuff, by parroting others, when in fact, they know not much of anything.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49429567

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

https://web.archive.org/web/20060427152801/http://www.standp...

Though I like this angle a bit better, it'd be interesting to look into why standpoint had a hard time.

Upon insertion do you incrementally build the tree, or do you rebuild it from scratch?

How did you ensure the distribution of nodes was about the same with the chunker?

The resulting decisions are fed into the coding loop with guardrails derived from those decisions. The agent one-shots features once it goes into the coding loop.

When that happens, do you read just the spec, or do you also need to read the code? Is there a difference between "I can remember what I intended" and "I can predict what the system will do in a situation the spec didn't cover"?

Interestingly, you said the spec author must be you. What happens when you join a codebase where someone else wrote the SPEC, or where an agent wrote the code and nobody spec'd it? Is the spec still sufficient, or does the "you must write it" part mean the understanding doesn't transfer?

Not being familiar with the piece, so I looked it up. Seems like it was a protest correspondence aimed at a specific institution, not a public artwork. It doesn't appear to have been exhibited, reviewed, or discussed in print in 1840. Mostly circulated privately.

So I don't think it's a good test. Because you're asking me to point out an equivalent piece in the billions of generative art produced in these six years that would be judged by future historians to have great artistic value. If we were both back in 1840, we both wouldn't be able to point out "Self‐Portrait as a Drowned Man" either. It never posed itself as art at the time, and we'd have to know what future art historians thought.

Yes, I stand by the "lacking perspective" comment, because your judgements on photography and what's considered art are from the current modern point of view, rather than putting yourself in the shoes of those judging photography when it first came out--which is the shoes we find ourselves wearing when it comes to judging generative images, because the alternative (retrospectively judging it from the future) is unavailable to us.

Hence, my core argument still stands. In what way is photography different than generated images, where in photography is considered art because humans can exercise their creative judgement, but in generative images isn't because humans cannot exercise their creative judgement?

To argue against my own stance, the tact you should have taken could have been:

If one major component of art is the human judgement, how could humans could be credited for exercising any judgement at all when prompting, when LLMs are at the end of the pipe? And if they're at all intelligence, what's to say they're not superseding our intentions with their own?

Does the lack of an existence proof for fine art photography in the first six years mean that photography will never be fine art? Obviously not for us living in the future.

You'll need to propose a different, more honest test.

> As the photographic industry was the refuge of every would-be painter, every painter too ill-endowed or too lazy to complete his studies, this universal infatuation bore not only the mark of a blindness, an imbecility, but had also the air of a vengeance. I do not believe, or at least I do not wish to believe, in the absolute success of such a brutish conspiracy, in which, as in all others, one finds both fools and knaves; but I am convinced that the ill-applied developments of photography, like all other purely material developments of progress, have contrib­uted much to the impoverishment of the French artistic genius, which is already so scarce.

Harsh. It wasn't a fringe view either. I encourage you to read how much creatives despised photography.

This argument was transferred to film when it first came out as well. It took a long while and a couple court cases before it was accepted that it took editorial choice for a photograph and film to be good. When it was accepted that to be the case, despite the aspects of mechanical reproduction, it was also accepted into the pantheon of fine art.

So it will be for AI generated images and video. So far, I've seen nothing inherent in the properties of AI generated media as a medium that obviates a human editorial eye. Even if AI could exercise comparable judgement, we will like an image because we want the curation of a specific person.

In Grant Sanderson's interview with Dwarkesh Patel about the future role of mathematicians (36:25), he says:

> One interesting take that I've heard about what mathematicians will end up being is that it's actually more analogous to art museum curators than anything else. The AI solved the thing, so the art exists. They even know how to explain it really well. But you still want someone to help you navigate this nearly infinite space of what ideas are worth engaging with. Even if AIs were in some sense better at that, I think we would always still prefer a human that we had a relationship with, because the way we get motivated to be interested in things is a social phenomenon. If you have some specific technology you're trying to build, that might be different. But the people listening to this podcast trust your curation on what's an interesting topic in the first place. It's not that they're landing here because whatever your next topic is, that's what they wanted to understand in a prior sense. They're trusting you as a curator. So my role, and arguably that of other mathematicians, might actually just shift subtly into that curation direction of what ideas are worth pursuing. That's a lot of my job right now.

Hence, I think there will be a role for AI generated images and video to be elevated into the fine art in the next couple of decades, and we'll see them in museums and exhibitions--as well more mundane uses like what's sitting on your phone right now--just like how photographs are used today.

And if he's to be believed in 1859, photography isn't art.

But today, it's widely accepted that it is. And in all likelihood, you think it is too.

Why is that? And if you have an answer, you'd have to argue why AI generated images wouldn't follow the same trajectory.