<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: wefzyn</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=wefzyn</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2026 17:24:16 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=wefzyn" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by wefzyn in "The Visible Zorker: Zork 1"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>It does even better than that.
I have a private interactive fiction game going based on a popular novel. It's very immersive. Still a work in progress. Right now you can do the daily life things the novel skips like making dinner. I make it so you can skip the day but I was enjoying doing the routine things. It's hard having the game keep track of objects and some NPCs knew things they shouldn't. I tightened it but testing is a lot of work. Hmm. Maybe I can have another LLM play test it.<p>It also allows you to deviate from the novel. This is a romance novel. I had the main character choose someone else and it showed an alternate version of the novel. After the main threat of the story was dispatched things settled into weeks of routine living where I added another person into my routine. I played to see if another event would show up but after 3 in game weeks I decided to stop. This was a test and I needed to improve the game. I can see this becoming addictive to some people because they will be living in the story and having a life there and making friends and finding partners.<p>This type of game is still uncharted territory. Does one end the game or let the player play indefinitely? Is it more fun to have the player do the daily life things or skip those or give them a choice?</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2026 04:55:14 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47917825</link><dc:creator>wefzyn</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47917825</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47917825</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by wefzyn in "AI Added 'Basically Zero' to US Economic Growth Last Year, Goldman Sachs Says"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>True. The point remains the same. GDP isn’t measuring “meaningfulness,” and it also doesn’t measure “stress” very well either. Tech can change daily life massively in either direction without moving GDP much.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2026 01:57:05 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47131892</link><dc:creator>wefzyn</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47131892</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47131892</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by wefzyn in "AI Added 'Basically Zero' to US Economic Growth Last Year, Goldman Sachs Says"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Andrej Karpathy said that major revolutions like the Internet, smartphones, and AI often don’t show up clearly in GDP statistics, even when they radically change how people work. GDP measures total spending, not productivity or usefulness. These revolutions improved efficiency and quality of life, but GDP mostly continued along its long-term trend.<p>See his interview in Dwarkesh's podcast:  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0-0gGdDJyE&t=4983s" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0-0gGdDJyE&t=4983s</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2026 01:38:18 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47131755</link><dc:creator>wefzyn</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47131755</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47131755</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by wefzyn in "Show HN: Phage Explorer"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Very good idea and very interesting. Great use of AI. The next step in this project, if you were funded, would be to have human experts double check the accuracy of the information and images.<p>Since this isn't funded, you could have a frontier model evaluate all the information for inaccuracies and fix them it can't find any. Then have another frontier model do the same. Then go back to the first model and see if it finds any inaccuracies.<p>Keep at it. You are doing a great job, but there is more work to be done before you can productionize it.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2026 18:46:15 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46839432</link><dc:creator>wefzyn</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46839432</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46839432</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by wefzyn in "The next two years of software engineering"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>AI became very popular suddenly. This is something that wasn't in anyone's budget. I believe cost savings from hiring freezes and layoffs are to pay for AI projects and infrastructure.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2026 03:07:01 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46583543</link><dc:creator>wefzyn</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46583543</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46583543</guid></item></channel></rss>