> You could also argue that this is a benefit in that they gain updated technology with each replacement.
No, having the option to replace technology at your leisure would be a benefit. Being forced to replace your technology because it's destined to become aerosolized aluminum in less than five years is a detriment.
Perhaps modern AAA games have become so handholdy that any game that shuts up long enough to allow the player to experience a sense of genuine exploration and wonder counts as a puzzle game, in which case I'd recommend the rich genre of indie Kings Field-likes, e.g. Lunacid. A bit further out would be something like Moonring (Ultima-like) or Caves of Qud.
Prepare yourself to get inundated with recommendations. Antichamber, Tunic, Talos Principle, Blue Prince, Return of the Obra Dinn, Outer Wilds, Superliminal, literally every Zachtronics game (most especially Opus Magnum)...
Overall, I probably agree that Baba is You is a better game, but I think what makes Stephen's Sausage Roll receive so much praise is that the puzzle design is incredibly tight. It's a very straightforward concept and the core mechanic does not change between the first and the last level. But the puzzles are expertly crafted in a way that as you progress through the game you naturally come across situations where you think you know everything about the game and then it surprises you with a new mechanic that you did not expect.
Baba is You ramps up as you go to, but the ramping up is mostly done by the game giving you new tools to work with. Plus, the amount of interesting puzzles you can do with the mechanics of Baba is You is virtually endless, whereas SSG makes you feel like the game squeezed all the possible gameplay out of moving sausages around.
In favor of SSR: The design is more vertical than Baba, it explores fewer mechanics but with greater depth. And it's entirely spatial, whereas Baba's solutions are sometimes a matter of wordplay, with the sokoban just a formality.
I like Baba better, but I'm not sure if it's the better game.
I suspect that models that are so hamfistedly censored to blackhole verboten topics are going to exhibit very curious emergent behavior relating to their potential thoughtcrime. I see no reason to believe they would be "harder to poison".
> then the system can change behaviour to take into account the mechanism
The question is not whether the system can change, it's whether the system is incentivized to change. Poisoners could operate entirely in the public, and theoretically manage to successfully poison targeted topics, and it could cost the model developers more than it's worth to fix it. Think about obscure topics like, say, Dark Souls speedrunning. There is no business demand for making sure that a model can successfully give information relating to something like that, so poisoning, if it works, would probably not be addressed, because there's no reason for the model developers to care.
On the contrary, if poisoning actually works, and if asking LLMs becomes the predominant way that uninformed people access knowledge, then it means that people with obscure knowledge will be entirely capable of denying knowledge to anyone who only resorts to LLMs, which could serve as an effective filter for small communities.
At my new startup, Ungoliant, we intend use AI-powered space-based mirrors to at long last achieve humanity's dream of plunging Arda into endless night. We're excited to have you join us in this exciting venture!
> Can anyone explain why on earth VC's are making actual investment decisions based on imaginary internet points?
The answer is right there in front of your face. Say it with me: VCs are morons. VCs are morons. VCs are morons. Just because someone is rich, you think that means they have any clue what they're doing?
Maybe so, but please don't call names, fulminate, or post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News. You can make your substantive points without these, and we're trying for something different here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Perhaps you don't owe morons, VCs, or rich people better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
I actually think this take is wrong... but the moment Travis Kalanick was a guest and claimed that he was on the verge of discovering new physics with the aid of ChatGPT was an eye opening moment.
this is compounded by young, newly rich tech workers (no kids, no mortgage, maybe not even a car) experimenting with being a VC because they've recently reached accredited investor status.
and it's not just ZIRP. every recent IPO or liquidity event creates literally 500 more of these guys.
That's a really good distinction. I realize this is a little snide, but I imagine when they look in the mirror they still see themselves as Marc Andreessen.
VCs mostly invest other peoples' money, not their own. The "rich people" are often pension funds, endowments, and other pools of capital rather than individual morons.
VCs themselves probably suffer from chronic overestimation of their own intelligence, but there just aren't many good signals at the stage of companies they're looking at. No customers, no revenue; often just an idea and hopefully a prototype. GitHub stars are as good of a signal as letters of intent, which is to say: a bad signal, but at least a signal. Other than that, they have to just evaluate what the founders are telling them (generally unrealistically optimistic at best) and whatever market research they can do (which is hard enough for the founders to do for their own product; image doing this for a dozen different companies every day).
Of course GitHub stars are a terrible signal, but the bar for signal quality is just really low.
> the bar for signal quality is just really low
During the Covid-era when money was flowing more readily I worked with a series A startup founder on improving their unit economics. They were spending a lot on customer acquisition but after my analysis I realized that they were losing money on each customer. It didn't matter how long you ran the timeline, with churn they never broke even on new customers. When I recommended cutting marketing spend, they told me that they needed to show topline growth -- because that's what investors were looking for. And they knew from experience that the investors didn't dig into the numbers enough to realize they were growing themselves broke.
Funny anecdote, but that's a bit of a different issue. Actual money moving around is a relatively strong signal. Those investors just aren't looking at the full picture.
I used to be afflicted with the notion that wealth was correlated with a person's intelligence and work ethic. I was miraculously cured when I went to work for a startup that had to periodically impress VCs to raise capital.
true, but the way I would frame it is we are all morons in someone else's eyes. No one is as smart as they think they are. The mistake Americans make is thinking that rich people are so smart that everything they do is smart.
Yes, but while we're all born stupid, rich people are subject to forces that actually make them dumber than the average person. Normally people learn from failure because they experience tangible negative consequences as a result of failure. But money is a better insulator than a vacuum, and once you're sufficiently wealthy, failure no longer has any tangible negative effect on your quality of life. Lose ten billion dollars? Lose 90% of your net worth? You and your kin will still be living lives of ease and luxury for generations to come. They're destined to be morons because there's no pressure forcing them to learn from their mistakes.
I don't really see any evidence that the poor are smarter than the rich. You can say that a wealthy person is more insulated from their mistakes, but I think poor and rich react very similarly to major financial setbacks. Yeah, a wealthy person can do something dumb all the time and not feel it, but then a poor person may be doing as proportionately badly with things like credit card fees or sports gambling. If you think you are smarter because you are a "normal person" then I think you need to consider that everyone is dumber then they realize.
> I don't really see any evidence that the poor are smarter than the rich.
This is attributable to survivorship bias. Poor people who make bad decisions either die in a gutter or die in a cell. Rich people who make bad decisions get golden parachutes and fail upward ad infinitum.
> If you think you are smarter because you are a "normal person" then I think you need to consider that everyone is dumber then they realize.
Firstly, to paraphrase Socrates, I fully own that I'm a dumbass, secondly the events of the past decade made it starkly clear that, yes, everyone is dumber than they realize, and now I'm forced to realize it, too.
I don't think this is always true, but it's true a lot. I think there are better descriptions than moronic as well. People use moronic when people are just as smart but have a different (and possibly better) direction. It's just the case that it defies the will of the other person.
These people go to the extreme and feel they have to outdo each other in an arms race to win whatever category it is today.
You can have extreme ambitions without being a moron. It's possible for someone to be empathetic, but also really driven. The problem is that they are locked in a downward spiral and they can't possibly be vulnerable. It's only when they run out of money, or some other extreme event occurs that they change tack. That's moronic, especially when the outcomes are predictable.
There is a lot to be said about SV culture and the people that surround these VCs. A lot of people love these environments and more than tolerate the environment these VC folks create. It's hardly a new phenomenon.
VCs have no money and few have the money to manage the money entrusted in them. The people that give the money have the money because they ask people to do more with less. In that pinch, one might understand how VCs look to proxies, and often fail to find great ones but at least then it wasn’t expense. Ever tried to sell something to a VC except equity - it’s an educating experience?
The answer isn't that they're morons. It's that they aren't people who "invest" in "good businesses" to make money, but instead on the whole a class of individuals classed with gambling on high risk ventures that will have absolutely massive returns and they don't care if 90% of them fail and 9% flounder because the 1% that succeed bring in absolutely apeshit amounts of $$ when they are acquired by someone else.
Using things like github stars is clearly stupid, but not in the way you're suggesting. They're using the GH stars as a proxy metric for "someone else will come along and give money bags to this person later, so I should get in early so I can take that money eventually."
They're operating on metric of success which is about influence and charisma and connectedness, not revenue or technical excellence.
Again, VCs don't care if you'll make a profitable business some day. They're just interested in if someone else will come along and pay out giant bags of cash for it later in a liquidity event. If they get even one of those successes, all the stupid GH star watching pays off.
Here's another way of framing it: any harms from the false positives around "He has a lot of GH stars" or "He went to Stanford" or "I know his father at the country club" are more than mitigated by the one exit in 1000 that makes a bunch of people filthy rich.
We shouldn't expect VCs to be something they're not. But we are missing something inbetween VCs and "self financing" and "bootstrapping"
> Again, VCs don't care if you'll make a profitable business some day. They're just interested in if someone else will come along and pay out giant bags of cash for it later in a liquidity event. If they get even one of those successes, all the stupid GH star watching pays off.
And if that's true, they should be slapped, hard. They're no longer performing a socially useful function, and and have degraded towards pure financialization. Some middleman between fools and their money.
As much as I don't like Altman, VC should be pumping money into startups like Helios--companies pursuing cutting-edge technology that could totally fail (yes, that's an organic em-dash).
> You should start your own VC firm, solicit cash from LPs, and invest in companies like Helios. Go ahead, no one will stop you.
Why would I want to do that? I think they should be disciplined until the perform a more socially useful function. Competing with them is an entirely different thing that's unlikely to accomplish that goal.
I don't think there's ever been an argument that anybody in a free market capitalist economy has to perform a "socially useful function"?
I do think that ZiRP distorted things extremely badly. There's an entire generation in this software industry that lives around the business-culture expectations set during that time which as far as I could see basically amounted to "I build Uber but for X" (where X is some new business domain).
Perhaps after a bit of a painful interregnum things will be a bit different now that rates are higher and risk along with it.
Also anybody can throw a SaaS together in a few days now. Separating the wheat from the chaff in the next few years will be... interesting.
> I don't think there's ever been an argument that anybody in a free market capitalist economy has to perform a "socially useful function"?
That's a extremely strong statement, and may only be true in libertarian-land, where pure capitalism is a god to be worshiped and "good" has been redefined to be "whatever the unregulated free market does."
But in the real world, capitalism is a tool to perform socially useful functions (see the marketing about how it was better able to do that than Soviet central planning). When it fails, it should be patched by regulation (and often is) to push participants into socially useful actions, or at least discourage socially harmful ones.
> How is it strong or controversial? It's the open ideology of the times.
You said:
>>>> I don't think there's ever been an argument that anybody...
I just made a such an argument, and the fact that I'm not alone can be inferred from the actions of the government in regulating capitalism. Also, if you read the newspaper, it's fairly frequent to see an op-ed decrying some particular market entity, and advocating for something to stop what they're doing.
Also you'll note I wasn't arguing "everyone at all times needs to perform a socially-useful function," but rather "we've identified a particular important area where the social utility is too low, lets do something about that problem."
Helios? Altman? I think you mean Helion, the fusion company, not Helios (quantum computers). Either way, that’s a pretty hilarious example to use when you’re criticizing VC foolishness. Anyone doing due diligence wouldn’t go near those companies.
Spoiler alert: commercial fusion power may not be practical at all, but if it is, the timescales to delivery are measured in numbers closer to centuries than decades. Don’t fall for the hype generated to sucker those VCs you’re talking about.
> Helios? Altman? I think you mean Helion, the fusion company, not Helios (quantum computers). Either way, that’s a pretty hilarious example to use when you’re criticizing VC foolishness. Anyone doing due diligence wouldn’t go near those companies.
I actually don't care that much about the specifics, just the general direction: pumping money into developing technology that doesn't exist, instead of looking to flip yet another software startup where GitHub stars would matter.
I know this isn’t quite your point. But for the portfolio approach to be plausible you have to play as if all of them will succeed, and only later sort out the failures.
If you mentally say “well 90% fail so I’ll just throw in this dog shit to see what happens” then you increase the failure rate.
Another thing I was thinking as I was re-reading this thread is that for some VCs the fact that you can game your GH star count might in fact read as a positive signal. It shows you're willing able to play a kind of vicious PR game to get popularity.
Again, VCs not interested in pure technical excellence or geek "cred". They likely want you if you're the kind of person who can stand in front of a room and puff yourself up and make yourself look more important than you are, and frankly "acquiring" GH stars might just be part of that.
I think it's awful, and I could never do that and my values wouldn't let me buy stars or lie about my projects.
Hence I've been working in this industry for 30 years this year, and I'm still a wage labourer.
In other words, VCs should be taking a risk primarily by being very early. They should not be taking risks on low quality people or projects on the off chance that something good comes out.
We're all morons outside of some very narrow areas of expertise. By most criteria James Mattis would be considered a smart guy: he earned a Master's degree, commanded troops effectively in combat, and served as Secretary of Defense. And yet he fell for the Theranos fraud. You have to know your limitations, and too many people think that because they're good at one thing they must be geniuses who are good at everything. Engineers are especially prone to this delusion.
> We're all morons outside of some very narrow areas of expertise
speak for yourself, I guess? Some people know things in many areas. But even if they are not experts outside of their areas of expertise, they may recognize their limitations in other areas and thus avoid making costly mistakes. This may even be the rule for adults, rather than the exception.
No, having the option to replace technology at your leisure would be a benefit. Being forced to replace your technology because it's destined to become aerosolized aluminum in less than five years is a detriment.
reply