Live data from Hacker News

John Carmack talk at Upper Bound 2025

twitter.com

121–130 of 387 posts

Re: John Carmack talk at Upper Bound 2025

#121
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was 6 years ago. I'm sure now there'd be no contest now if OpenAI dedicated resources to it, which it won't because it's busy with solving entirety of human language before others eat their lunch.

What do you base your certainty on? Were there any significant enough breakthroughs in the AGI?

ARC-AGI, while imagined as super hard for AI, was beaten enough that they had to come up with ARC-AGI-2.

Re: John Carmack talk at Upper Bound 2025

#123
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Games are heavily used in RL research.

I understand that. Doing games in real time is just a performance problem that can be solved with more compute or inane optimizations. It’s not interesting research.

Here's a heuristic that somebody gave me a while ago: using the word "just" in the way you did is a signal that you don't understand the topic.

John's document covers why he's doing what he's doing:

> Fundamentally, I believe in the importance of learning from a stream of interactive experience, as humans and animals do, which is quite different from the throw-everything-in-a-blender approach of pretraining an LLM. The blender approach can still be world-changingly valuable, but there are plenty of people advancing the state of the art there.

He thinks interacting with the real world and learning as you go isn't getting enough attention and might take us farther than the LLM approach. So he's applying these ideas to a subject that he's an expert in. You don't seem to find this approach interesting but John does (and I do too, for the record).

Everybody dismissing him might be right. Those keeping score know that Carmack's batting average isn't one thousand. But those people also know Carmack has the resources to work on pretty much whatever he wants to work on. I'm happy he's still working hard at something and sharing his work.

Re: John Carmack talk at Upper Bound 2025

#124
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From watching on the wall I've seen brogrammer used in various contexts (this is not an exhaustive list): - Someone who is a programmer but follows a hypermasculine cliche and makes sure everyone knows about it. - An insult used by other developers for someone who is more physically fit or interested in their health than themselves. - An insult used by engineers or other people who are not happy with the over represe…

A. A male programmer who uses the word "bro" unironically in conversation. B. A person who is physically and culturally indistinguishable from A

What physical or cultural characteristics would make a person "indistinguishable from A"?

Re: John Carmack talk at Upper Bound 2025

#126
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also wasn't even remotely close to learning Dota 2 proper. They ran a massively simplified version of the game where the AI and humans alternated between playing one of two pre-defined team compositions, meaning >90% of the games characters and >99.999999% of the possible compositions and matchups weren't even on the table, plus other standard mechanics were also changed or disabled altogether for the sake of the…

Exactly. What I find surprising in this story though is not the OpenAI. It's investors not seeing through these blatant.. lets call them exaggerations of the reality and still trusting the company with their money. I know I wouldn't have. But then again, maybe that's why I'm poor.

In their hearts, startup investors are like Agent Mulder: they Want To Believe. Especially after they’ve already invested a little. They are willing to overlook obvious exaggerations up to and including fraud, because the alternative is admitting their judgment is not sound.

Look at how long Theranos went on! Miraculous product. Attractive young founder with all the right pedigree, credentials, and contacts, dressed in black trurtlenecks. Hell, she even talked like Steve Jobs! Investors never had a chance.

Re: John Carmack talk at Upper Bound 2025

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also wasn't even remotely close to learning Dota 2 proper. They ran a massively simplified version of the game where the AI and humans alternated between playing one of two pre-defined team compositions, meaning >90% of the games characters and >99.999999% of the possible compositions and matchups weren't even on the table, plus other standard mechanics were also changed or disabled altogether for the sake of the…

It was 6 years ago. I'm sure now there'd be no contest now if OpenAI dedicated resources to it, which it won't because it's busy with solving entirety of human language before others eat their lunch.

Funnily enough, even dota2 has grown much more complex than it was 6 years ago, so it's a harder problem to solve today than it was back then

Re: John Carmack talk at Upper Bound 2025

#129
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What this misses is that research is a competitive endeavor. To succeed as a researcher you don’t just need to know the bare minimum required to do research in your field. You need to be able to do it better than most of the people you’re competing against. I know that HN as a collective has near-unlimited faith in Carmack’s abilities (and he is no doubt Very Smart). But he’s competing with other Very Smart people wh…

Why does it need to be competitive? Maybe the guy has enough money to let him do whatever he wants regardless of the outcome and he chose AI because it's interesting to him.

In research you have to succeed before your competitors. It’s not research if it’s already been done.
Post reply on HN