Why to multiply instead of going to the same place for knowledge? It is almost like you want to make a different Wikipedia for conservatives and liberals because one cannot tolerate a tone or style of the other. Probably we should dedicate dozens of sites for the same topic depending on the writing styles of the humans too. There are a few out there.
In worst case we might have an 'AI language' (or languages) instead, so the sensitive souls could find a safe heaven from it elsewhere, choosing something else. Perhaps one along the idea of 'simple English', have it 'AI English'. Or something else satisfies those looking for a specific way of delivery they can handle exclusively.
I think knowledge is the important here, not the tone.
The knowledge comes from the humans. AI is used to write it down. I do not think it was said that the knowledge comes from the AI. Just like thoughts are not produced by a typewriter.
So the humans have the knowledge, and the only way that an LLM can possibly reproduce it is by happenstance after you train it on the tokenized representation of the human knowledge, a process in which it is just as likely to make something up. What is the point of the LLM in this elaborate waste of time? What does it add?
A typewriter prints the letters exactly as you press the corresponding keys. It doesn't invent bullshit on its own as you do. I can't take the comparison to a typwriter as a serious, good faith argument. If you have any worthwhile ideas, please bring those up instead of poorly considered variations on the usual "it's just a tool" platitudes. The comparison is invalid. You are thoughtless for bringing it up.
Honestly Wikipedia is just fine being written by humans. It's not the lack of copy that is holding Wikipedia back.
However,
> Perhaps one along the idea of 'simple English', have it 'AI English'.
That's actually an interesting idea. It could work, but I don't personally think it would be better than the English Wikipedia.
Also, are you expecting that humans would still be on the loop by deciding what gets added to AI English Wikipedia, or you think that LLMs should get to decide that too?
Why force one particular website to act the way you want, instead of just using a different website that already does? I don't go to HN and then complain it doesn't have subreddits.
> It is almost like you want to make a different Wikipedia for conservatives and liberals because one cannot tolerate a tone or style of the other.
Many conservative worldview elements such as climate change denialism, creationism or anti LGBT view (e.g. LGBT being "unnatural") are not backed by reality because they run counter to scientifical consensus. And that's before we go into the outlandish bullshit conspiracy crap like "ZOG/zionist occupied government", "flat earth", "9/11 was faked", "the moon landing was faked" and the likes that gains more and more momentum among "conservative" people.
You cannot make a Wikipedia appealing to conservatives.
I prefer keeping the concepts of "playing in time together" and "playing in time together on a strict grid" separate. For example, in a classical orchestra you typically very much strive to play in time together, but you do that according to the conductor's interpretation of the tempo marks of the piece, which often calls for tempo variation.
In jazz, you also typically do your best to play in time together, but for long sections timing is often made an open-ended problem where the rhythm section doesn't interfere too much with stylistic timing variations that IMO often separate the simply skillful solo from the deeply felt one. The idea of an accent in modern popular music seems largely have practically narrowed to dynamic articulation, but agogic accents are a thing that skilled musicians can perform in a band setting without it seeming like an "imperfection".
> (I never used em-dash (big fan of the parens), and I resisted for a while, re: ai, but now am trying to use them appropriately)
I started using the emdash after learning of the compose key feature of X11. Not tuning the emdash dial to 11 or anything, but occasionally. Now I avoid it to spare myself the indignity of someone confusing me for a chatbot. In general I prefer a more vulgar style of writing as a direct response to those chatbot tics.
Of course, that now distinct LLM style was kind of a thing before, too, but if you weren't writing some bullshit on SEO on Medium or congratulating yourself for your achievements on LinkedIn, using elements of that style wasn't such a source of confusion. Now the chatbots will frame everything as though it's an insight on B2B sales strategies that struck them when they tripped on a dog leash while jogging to work.
Some of us old enough to learn to type on keyboards without compose keys (and OSes pre unicode) learnt to use multiple dashes for en- and em-dashes -- like this. Like two spaces after a period, this is ingrained muscle memory that I don't consciously think about when typing.
I'm very glad of this now, because it means that I can still write with en- and em-dashes, while also demonstrating that my writing is not LLM-generated.
Is this categorization actionable or meaningful in any way? If a system or process relies on no one on the internet being a liar, it's broken. There are liars. There will be more liars. As is made evident, people (and machines) will unwittingly reproduce lies out of sheer incompetence. That reflects poorly on them as reliable sources of information.
The VCS has some handy features that makes it easier.
First, there is no frame buffer (there could be no such thing in that memory space), but there are effectively line buffers for the different sprite types and background. These are not in the 128 bytes of general purpose RAM but memory mapped to the display controller.
Second, it maintains the patterns in these buffers until you change them and will repeat them on the next line unless you do anything to change them. This makes it easy to perform partial update, e.g. only update the background every 8 lines and only update sprite graphics on odd lines or whatever you need to do to save time.
Third, the video controller can be instructed (via a memory mapped register) to halt the CPU until the next horizontal "blanking" interval. This makes synchronizing to the beam position between lines much easier.
Fourth, there are no interrupts (except NMI, only triggered manually with the brk instruction) so timing is easily predictable.
Fifth, there is a hardware timer which makes it easier to keep track of your budget while in the vertical blanking portion of the screen, where you probably want to handle most if not all of your game logic. That way the game logic doesn't need to be strictly timed in the same way the screen is.
I made a game for it (https://text.garden/jupitersumo.html) expecting it to be difficult, but found that the simplicity and predictable timing made it surprisingly easy. On the C64 for example you will often find yourself wanting to synchronize to the beginning of a line or even every line for one reason or another, but doing that while dealing with the complexities of its timing is a whole science unto itself. For the main game screen I ended up using some 16 bytes of state in RAM to represent the stuff I need to keep track of while "racing the beam". The code that handles the display is maybe 150 instructions long and lives in the game ROM. The source code is linked from the page if you're interested in how it works.
Of course, in terms of what it displays, my game is very simple, only showing a background and the player sprites. There are much more complex display routines ("kernels") in the VCS game library. An interesting example is Pitfall II, which is very impressive considering the platform, but uses a coprocessor on the cartridge itself (called the DPC) to help sequence line register updates. From memory, I think it lets you enqueue data in advance, and during the display routine the CPU can just read a single register to get the next byte from a queue.
reply