- moon moves too fast and has too strong of an influence. The aiming line that supposedly shows the path of your projectile is misleading, since by the time the projectile gets there, it's out of date.
- moons speed makes it impossible to put anything in orbit, or slingshot around it (it just throws stuff out into space)
- already said many times, but you can just drive up to the other player and shoot them point blank
did you actually try playing it yourself before posting about it?
It's obvious pretty quick that you use the prediction line to inform what to do on the next pass, and you have to time it. It would be too easy if it was just "wait for the projection to point at the other player and hit fire".
Being able to shoot the other player is a minor quibble for this kind of web minigame. It's still fun and interesting.
this guy gets it! as I mentioned in another post, yes the trajectory line is instantaneous, and you need to rely on your internal electrical meat estimator to predict how that trajectory evolves.
It's human writing, lots of typos. But, the grandiose claims of revolutionary discoveries without evidence raises questions. Might be true, and if so, it's big. But...
I've got Pi-hole and uBlock, use Firefox container tabs to isolate certain sites, and Firefox still reports it blocked over 2800 trackers this month alone. I wonder how many are still getting through.
I didn't get the unicorn thing either, but it's explained better in the longer post (https://www.redblobgames.com/x/2635-a-vs-an/). Unicorn is pronounced starting with a sound like 'you', which starts with a consonant.
Not if you have a dog. They’re very clearly aware, have minds, have thoughts, gather information, make decisions, second guess themselves, reflect on the immediate consequences, change their mind… and most importantly, you can observe them doing all these things undirected, while left alone with their thoughts.
Dogs having agency actually makes the argument stronger.
Assume dogs have agency. Despite this, it's still the dog owner's responsibility to prevent their dogs from engaging in some actions: biting, peeing and shitting in unapproved areas, violating noise disturbance laws, etc.
The owners responsibility is not contingent on the dog's agency. Likewise, human operators of LLMs maintain responsibility independent of LLMs agency status. It's a red herring.
I think Cal's point is that while dogs may do these things it reduces to a set of behaviors where maybe 90 percent of them are beneficial to the dog-weedwacker system and the remaining 10 percent are really unfortunate.
We can't really know the dogs inner life so we just kinda have to reduce it to a set of behaviors selected stocastically.
The dog meanwhile has no ability to understand the weedwacker or what it's doing on its back.
So when the guy puts the weedwacker on the dog and the dog predicably does dog things and that results in disaster the guy isn't able to clutch his pearls and say "I guess the system broke containment!"
> The dog meanwhile has no ability to understand the weedwacker
Nah, I’m pretty sure that most medium or larger dogs get that the noise means danger - even if they can’t give a TED talk on how the mechanism would work that would hurt them.
Dogs are similarly interested in / aware of potential energy (things falling from heights or sliding off of angles) - if they’ve seen it enough times for their level.
Sounds like you weren't paying attention. A lot of dog owners don't, so it's not at all unusual in my experience. The only thing I'd push back on is of dogs having thoughts, everything else checks out.
I've had a two different dogs do this independently by now:
They'll be laying down happily napping. Then they get up, walk to a different room, and some seconds later come back carrying a toy. They return to where they used to lay, lay down again, and put the toy on their front paws.
I don't know what else that was than the thought of wanting one of their favorite toys there for comfort. (Familiar-smelling things are comforting to dogs.)
On dogs [not] having thoughts, do you say this based on the premise that thoughts are necessarily articulated (internally verbalized)? That seems to be a fairly popular perspective in discussions about human thought. But as to that (not to strawman or anything) I see it as just one of various forms of mental imagery[1] that can arise from something that I would say already arguably constitutes a thought.
That kind of unsymbolized thoughtform is fragile in my experience, as it strongly tends toward crystallizing into some kind of mental imagery. But I find it's possible in the right conditions to be conscious of chains of wordless, imageless propositional thoughts (by which I mean thoughts with truth values, of course, but also ones that are "propositional" in the sense of considering a plan of action or a causal chain).
Does it mean that dogs are evaluating truth conditions in the same manner but merely lack the linguistic components? I don't know; maybe that's wishful thinking. But they appear to have structured modeling/reasoning of causal and spatial relations in a way that's at least functionally equivalent to propositional thought.
1. That is, rather than just "images" or visualizations, the full spectrum of sensory/perceptual/motor emulations that can be experienced. See, for example, <https://hurlburt.faculty.unlv.edu/codebook.html>, though I'm not sure if this covers everything. I think there is, for example, a kinesthetic form of mental imagery -- which I would suggest is what coaches [don't know they] really mean when they tell you to visualize an action -- that consists of aborted motor commands that are still expressed just enough for their purpose (cf. the mostly aborted motor commands to the vocal cords, lips, etc. that can be observed in a person subvocalizing while reading).
You're right. I knew language is not necessary for cognition, but I always thought of thought as just internal monologue, i.e. "trains of thought". It turns out the definition they use in cognitive science is "the manipulation of internal mental representations to guide behavior, solve problems, and model the world in the absence of direct sensory input". Which doesn't require language either.
Probably it's this linguistic component, together withs shared intentionality/cooperation, that makes all of the difference when it comes to the power of human cognition, so I wouldn't say animals merely lack this component, but it's true that they appear to have pretty much everything else we do.
Lots of humans have no inner monologue. I think mostly in abstract shapes, spatial relations, and interactions. If anything I find the idea of thinking in linear sentences limiting.
I've been using HackerSmacker for a while to tag AI-related and non-AI-related submissions.
I find, depending on the time of day, 30-50% of submissions are about AI. Also, Users who submit AI-related content tend to also submit non-AI-related content - those I tag for non-AI-related content almost never submit AI-related content.
> My magic wand would be waving it at those humans to force them to suddenly and powerfully experience their version of an overview effect in their lives [...]
I've daydreamed about this too. I want to sit them down in an interview and try and dissect their thought process/morals. I doubt it's possible to succeed.
Thanks for sharing this. I'll be completely honest about my oddities and eccentricities that this has brought me to a place of trying to understand linguistics in a way I am simply not learned enough to do.
I have a barely substantiated hypothesis that a lot of what fails us as humans in communication is language, intent, and the inability to visualize the same thing with the same words. I have things I've tried to build around this, and the science has been around for many decades and beyond, but I have to try something. I can lie to myself in this and say that at least I'm trying to help people understand each other.
But linguistics is hard and my science is not strong and I am one person trying to convince my local peer groups my ideas about language isn't just goofy and worth a pat on the head. That's less a rant and more a point that I think we're on the same page in some ways: being able to dissect someone's thoughts and morals starts with knowing what tools to do it with, and the only tools I'm really good with are software and language. So, that's what I'm trying to do.
"It was a big step up on my career and put me in a better position to provide for my family, which is my most important moral duty" is what every one of them will say.
Very interesting, but I feel like I'm too dumb to 'get it'. It's not intuitive at all what makes a move good or bad. I lost 5 games against the easy bot, by a lot. I'm OK at othello/reversi and that mentality did not help me at all, probably worked against me. Maybe a section in the tutorial showcasing some good vs bad moves would help.
I mentioned this in another comment but I think it's just kind of hard to learn without the context of knowing how to play Go... I don't think it's a matter of being dumb. For me, learning Go was very much the same way where I had absolutely no idea what was going on and the amount of possible choices was very overwhelming. Also, fwiw the easy bot is not very easy. It mostly feels to me like the hard bot but it makes more mistakes.
I'd say general overall strategy is to try to create "bubbles". You want to surround areas with your stones rather than filling them in.
On the small board, it's pretty hard to go wrong with just making a line of solidly connected stones (make sure the colored line shows up between them) between two edges of the board. This might not let you win against the bot, but will at least help you claim territory. Then once you have figured out how to do that, you can start to think about making moves that block the bot from surrounding area, or reduce the amount of area available to it, etc.
One of the guys on the discord is a strong traditional Go player and was playing a lot of teaching games with people yesterday. If you're interested in learning you could ping on the discord and I'm sure he or someone else would be down to help you out: https://discord.gg/4ren7UAFeb
The stream-of-consciousness in the prompt is much better than the LLMs response. Yes, it's messy and unpolished, maybe even a little hard to parse, but it's so much richer for it. The way it is written lets me follow your thought process, shows that you were getting the words out quickly without much or any editing, and how you were exploring the idea and making it more concrete by giving it written form.
The LLM response has none of that character, it doesn't give me that little sliver of insight into the writer. It strips the idea from the author, making it generic and anonymous. The only thing I can gleam from text edited with an LLM like this (besides the literal meaning of the text), is that the author didn't care enough to express themselves.
Sure, it's more polished, but doing the writing manually is half the point. You have an abstract idea, you refine into something that can be communicated, and in doing so, explore that idea and improve your understanding of it. I've re-written this paragraph a dozen times trying to do exactly that.
It's getting those abstract ideas back out from the word-vomit I find very difficult. It is almost completely impenetrable to me to read that text - even though I wrote it!
Someone in another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49338214) has shown a prompt to just break it up and fix the sentence structure rather than rewriting, which should hopefully help me to at least re-read what I have written.
"More interesting" =/= "good". Yes, at the end of the day it's a very derisive rant against people the writer feels is too hard on AI and a defense on how they personally wield it. With a slightly ill intent to create a messy, unstructured writing in the prompt to support his point of "see, people like pretty words!".
Even the attempt of using Claude to be a fancy formatter failed when you look closely at the language employed in the final prompt. It's trying to convey the same ideas with better foratting, but still softens up the derision the author clearly has here. Which is the interesting part in my eyes.
> a very derisive rant... the derision the author clearly has...
You either do not know what derisive means or have worse reading comprehension than I do! /derision
Seriously though - it's literally just talking about the use of an LLM as an accessibility aid and argues that the LLM-assisted writing can still contain human thought. What specifically did you consider contemptuous or mocking?
There was no ill intent. The content itself described the reason for the process. Even simple comments I write here end up with multiple edits over the hour-long edit window.
If you read my entire comment history you will find I rarely make more than a single observation per comment. Anything more complex becomes too difficult to read and revise.
Cognitive impairment is extremely difficult to understand until you have experienced it. I am particularly lucid this afternoon. That doesn't mean the difficulty is not real.
- moon moves too fast and has too strong of an influence. The aiming line that supposedly shows the path of your projectile is misleading, since by the time the projectile gets there, it's out of date.
- moons speed makes it impossible to put anything in orbit, or slingshot around it (it just throws stuff out into space)
- already said many times, but you can just drive up to the other player and shoot them point blank
did you actually try playing it yourself before posting about it?
reply