Live data from Hacker News

John Carmack talk at Upper Bound 2025

twitter.com

251–260 of 387 posts

Re: John Carmack talk at Upper Bound 2025

#251

It's always a treat to watch a Carmack lecture or read anything he writes, and his notes here are no exception. He writes as an engineer, for engineers and documents all his thought processes and misteps in the exact detailed yet concise way you'd want a colleague to who was handing off some work. One question I would have about the research direction is the emphasis on realtime. If I understand correctly he's doing…

I'm sure there were offline rendering and 3D graphics workstation people saying the same about the comparatively crude work he was doing in the early 90s... Obviously both Carmack and the rest of the world has changed since then, but it seems to me his main strength has always been in doing more with less (early id/Oculus, AA). When he's working in bigger orgs and/or with more established tech his output seems to suf…

The thing about Carmack in the 90s... There was a lot of research going on around 3d graphics. Companies like SGI and Pixar were building specialized workstations for doing vector operations for 3d rendering. 3d was a thing. Game consoles with specialized 3d hardware would launch in 1994 with the Sega Saturn and the Sony Playstation (in Japan only for one year)

What Carmack did was basically get a 3d game running on existing COMMODITY hardware. The 386 chip that most people used for their excel spreadsheets did not do floating point operations well, so Carmack figured out how to do everything using integers.

May 1992 -> Wolfenstein 3d releases December 1993 -> Doom releases December 1994 -> Sony Playstation launches in Japan June 1996 -> Quake releases

So Wolfenstein and Doom were actually not really 3d games, but rather 2.5 games (you can't have rooms below other rooms). The first 3d game here is actually Quake which also eventually also got hardware acceleration support.

Carmack was the master of doing the seeminly impossible on super constrained hardware on virtually impossible timelines. If DOOM released in 1994 or 1995, would we still remember it in the same way?

Re: John Carmack talk at Upper Bound 2025

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give an example how it would be transformative compared to specialized AI?

Because it could very well exceed our capabilities beyond our wildest imaginations. Because we evolved to get where we are, humans have all sorts of messy behaviours that aren't really compatible with a utopian society. Theft, violence, crime, greed - it's all completely unnecessary and yet most of us can't bring ourselves to solve these problems. And plenty are happy to live apathetically while billionaires become t…

Oh great, can't wait for our AI overlords to control us more! That's definitely compatible with a "utopian society"*.

Funnily enough, I still think some of the most interesting semi-recent writing on utopia was done ~15 years ago by... Eliezer Yudkowsky. You might be interested in the article on "Amputation of Destiny."

Link: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/K4aGvLnHvYgX9pZHS/the-fun-th...

Re: John Carmack talk at Upper Bound 2025

#253
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or have your AGI design products

Does AGI necessarily mean super-genius? Was KITT AGI? I'm not sure he could design products?

No the term for that is ASI...artifical super intelligence. People in AI community have different timelines for that than AGI.

Re: John Carmack talk at Upper Bound 2025

#254
post #244

Why would AGI choose to be embodied? We talk about creating a superior intelligence and having it drive our cars and clean our homes. The scenario in Dan Simmons' Hyperion seems much more plausible: we invent AGI and it disappears into the cloud and largely ignores us.

It doesn't need to be permanent. If humans could escape from their embodiment temporarily they would certainly do so. Being permanently bounded to a physical interface is definitely a disadvantage.

Re: John Carmack talk at Upper Bound 2025

#255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't really need AGI. We need better specialized AIs. Throw in a few specialized AIs and they will leave some impact in the society. That might not be that far away.

Saying we don't "need" AGI is like saying we don't need electricity. Sure life existed before we had that capability, but it would be very transformative. Of course we can make specialized tools in the mean time.

The error in this argument is that electricity is real.

Re: John Carmack talk at Upper Bound 2025

#256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This debate is exhausting because there's no coherent definition of AGI that people agree on. I made a google form question for collecting AGI definitions cause I don't see anyone else doing it and I find it infinitely frustrating the range of definitions for this concept: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScDF5_CMSjHZDDexHkc... My concern is that people never get focused enough to care to define it - seems li…

It is a marketing term. That's it. Trying to exhaustively define what AGI is or could be is like trying to explain what a Happy Meal is. At it's core, the Happy Meal was not invented to revolutionize food eating. It puts an attractive label on some mediocre food, a title that exists for the purpose of advertisement. There is no point collecting definitions for AGI, it was not conceived as a description for something…

That’s historically inaccurate

My masters thesis advisor Ben Goertzel popularized the term and has been hosting the AGI conference since 2008:

https://agi-conference.org/

https://goertzel.org/agiri06/%5B1%5D%20Introduction_Nov15_PW...

I had lunch with Yoshua Bengio at AGI 2014 and it was most of the conversation that day

Re: John Carmack talk at Upper Bound 2025

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This debate is exhausting because there's no coherent definition of AGI that people agree on. I made a google form question for collecting AGI definitions cause I don't see anyone else doing it and I find it infinitely frustrating the range of definitions for this concept: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScDF5_CMSjHZDDexHkc... My concern is that people never get focused enough to care to define it - seems li…

It is a marketing term. That's it. Trying to exhaustively define what AGI is or could be is like trying to explain what a Happy Meal is. At it's core, the Happy Meal was not invented to revolutionize food eating. It puts an attractive label on some mediocre food, a title that exists for the purpose of advertisement. There is no point collecting definitions for AGI, it was not conceived as a description for something…

The name AGI (i.e. generalist AI) was originally intended to contrast with narrow AI which is only capable of one, or a few, specific narrow skills. A narrow AI might be able to play chess, or distinguish 20 breeds of dog, but wouldn't be able to play tic tac toe because it wasn't built for that. AGI would be able to learn to do anything, within reason.

The term AGI is obviously used very loosely with little agreement to it's precise definition, but I think a lot of people take it to mean not only generality, but specifically human-level generality, and human-level ability to learn from experience and solve problems.

A large part of the problem with AGI being poorly defined is that intelligence itself is poorly defined. Even if we choose to define AGI as meaning human-level intelligence, what does THAT mean? I think there is a simple reductionist definition of intelligence (as the word is used to refer to human/animal intelligence), but ultimately the meaning of words are derived from their usage, and the word "intelligence" is used in 100 different ways ...

Re: John Carmack talk at Upper Bound 2025

#258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"AI tend to be brittle and optimized for specific tasks, so we made a new specific task and then someone optimized for it" isn't some kind of gotcha. Once ARC puzzles became a benchmark they ceased to be meaningful WRT "AGI".

So if DOTA became a benchmark same way Chess or Go became earlier it would be promptly beaten. It just didn't stick before people moved to more useful "games".

Re: John Carmack talk at Upper Bound 2025

#259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure there were offline rendering and 3D graphics workstation people saying the same about the comparatively crude work he was doing in the early 90s... Obviously both Carmack and the rest of the world has changed since then, but it seems to me his main strength has always been in doing more with less (early id/Oculus, AA). When he's working in bigger orgs and/or with more established tech his output seems to suf…

The thing about Carmack in the 90s... There was a lot of research going on around 3d graphics. Companies like SGI and Pixar were building specialized workstations for doing vector operations for 3d rendering. 3d was a thing. Game consoles with specialized 3d hardware would launch in 1994 with the Sega Saturn and the Sony Playstation (in Japan only for one year) What Carmack did was basically get a 3d game running on…

> If DOOM released in 1994 or 1995, would we still remember it in the same way?

Maybe. One aspect of Wolfenstein and Doom's popularity is that it was years ahead of everyone else technically on PC hardware. The other aspect is that they were genre defining titles that set the standards for gameplay design. I think Doom Deathmatch would have caught on in 1995, as there really were very few (just Command and Conquer?) standout PC network multiplayer games released between 1993 and 1995.

Re: John Carmack talk at Upper Bound 2025

#260
post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about Carmack in the 90s... There was a lot of research going on around 3d graphics. Companies like SGI and Pixar were building specialized workstations for doing vector operations for 3d rendering. 3d was a thing. Game consoles with specialized 3d hardware would launch in 1994 with the Sega Saturn and the Sony Playstation (in Japan only for one year) What Carmack did was basically get a 3d game running on…

> If DOOM released in 1994 or 1995, would we still remember it in the same way? Maybe. One aspect of Wolfenstein and Doom's popularity is that it was years ahead of everyone else technically on PC hardware. The other aspect is that they were genre defining titles that set the standards for gameplay design. I think Doom Deathmatch would have caught on in 1995, as there really were very few (just Command and Conquer?)…

I guess the thing about rapid change is... it's hard to imagine what kind of games would exist in a DOOMless world in an alternate 1995.

The first 3d console games started to come out that year, like Rayman. Star Wars Dark Forces with its own custom 3d engine also came out. Of course Dark Forces was, however, an overt clone of DOOM.

It's a bit ironic, but I think the gameplay innovation of DOOM tends to hold up more than the actual technical innovation. Things like BSP for level partitioning have slowly been phased out of game engines, we have ample floating point compute power and hardware acceleration ow, but even developers of the more recent DOOM games have started to realize that they should return to the original formula of "blast zombies in the face at high speed, and keep plot as window dressing"

Post reply on HN