Sure. The connection is not direct, but I think that was the first book I read that explictly predicted a need to start poisoning data sets ( I think org in the book was called friend of privacy ) and to disprupt alternative reality monopoly efforts, its flooded with believable garbage. The connection may not be as clear, because it not mention AI in that capacity, but predicts human's reactions to corporate efforts.
I never read Synthetic Serendipity though so you got me curious.
We did have some movement in the director logic before and, I forgot the zombie game in question, some of it seems pretty well served for the most part. I still think there is some room for a proper game master type that you refer to ( adjusting the challenge to what the player seems to be to do ).
I was personally thinking of making NPC less npcy ( not completely unlike dwarf fortress, but expanded ).
I think the artists have a valid bone to pick and I think some of the backlash is mostly coming from that quarter. The actual gamers are more repulsed by established studios using AI for asset generation, because it comes across as a lazy money grab. But gamers are both flexible ( will jump through a lot of hoops to do what they want to do ) and and set in their way of 'just want to have fun'.
On the other side of the spectrum are indies, who can afford to experiment a little more so you get more interesting uses ( like 'voicelines' by AI come to mind ).
I know what I want to believe, but it is hard for me to call it ( I think it is a temporary trend ), because I might be a little too close to it. After all, gamers have been conditioned to endure a lot over the past decade and mostly shrugged off most of the assaults on their favorite past time.
If I were to compare it to something.. it is almost like using LLMs for email summaries ( which is still what most bosses seem to be most pleased with ). There are better use cases. I think those were not explored yet.
I am devoting 2026 to focus on my rpg. The one differentiator here is something I am still not seeing: proper use of LLMs in games. The current batch is all lazy asset generation, maybe logic coding and what not, but not anything that could make the world actually feel alive.
Obviously, it all comes with its own sets of issues, but I am working through those as they come. But it is still a slow move solo.
While I do sympathize with the thought behind it, general user is already equating llm chat box as 'better browsing'. In terms of simple positioning vis-a-vis non-technical audience, this is one integration that does make fiscal sense.. if mozilla was a real business.
Now, personally, I would like to have sane defaults, where I can toggle stuff on and off, but we all know which way the wind blows in this case.
<< What is better is to build a good set of rules and
But, unless you are on a local model you control, you literally can't. Otherwise, good rules will work only as long as the next update allows. I will admit that makes me consider some other options, but those probably shouldn't be 'set and iterate' each time something changes.
<< I feel there is a point when all these benchmarks are meaningless.
I am relatively certain you are not alone in this sentiment. The issue is that the moment we move past seemingly objective measurements, it is harder to convince people that what we measure is appropriate, but the measurable stuff can be somewhat gamed, which adds a fascinating layer of cat and mouse game to this.
I will say that it is wild, if not somewhat problematic that two users have such disparate views of seemingly the same product. I say that, but then I remember my own experience just from few days ago. I don't pay for gemini, but I have paid chatgpt sub. I tested both for the same product with seemingly same prompt and subbed chatgpt subjectively beat gemini in terms of scope, options and links with current decent deals.
It seems ( only seems, because I have not gotten around to test it in any systematic way ) that some variables like context and what the model knows about you may actually influence quality ( or lack thereof ) of the response.
You do have a point. That is why I am not pushing it as a general solution and frankly why I am not super keen on putting everything on github for everyone to see. If there is only one dark joke of the current times, it is that pressing agree somehow constitutes agreeing to legally consenting all sorts of invasive practices.
I would absolutely not suggest doing what I am doing to an average user.
edit: Frankly, just by thinking I am above average I might be inviting a more risky behavior.
I feel the same way. In a sense, our parents had it easier in terms of the damage external world could do emotionally, because there was typically a simple way to prevent most of it. Now, it is not nearly as simple. Not to search very far, our kid has a media diet that some consider strict ( 30 minutes a day of pre-selected items if kid meets some criteria, which I still consider too high ). But then some kids already have cellphones, ipads ( some completely unlocked too ! ). I only recently gave my kid lappy with gcompris installed ( locked down lappy; no net access ). Point I am trying to make in my rambly way is that each parent is hodge podge of various choices. And it does not work in aggregate.
I get that it is all about balance, but it is hard to disagree with Rahm here. Top down ban is the only real way to go.
I understand the concern, but I also think there are benefits to this approach. And while I absolutely agree with you on the likeness part used for a company, at a personal level, I believe it could have a great impact ( and be of use ). And, more importantly, you can then control the disposition of your likeness appropriately ( via an old fashioned will ). As a society, we seem to have solutions for these situations. They were just not very common.
<< They have always wanted us to magically know what parts are "good enough" and what parts can slide but for us to bear the burden of blame.
Well, that part is bound to add a level of tension to the process. Our leadership has AI training, where the user is responsible for checking its output, but the same leadership also outright stated it now sees individual user of AI as having 7 employees under them ( so should be 7x more productive ). Honestly, its maddening. None of it is how it works at all.
I love the level of detail ( probably, because I see it less and less these days ). It genuinely makes me wonder if anyone tried training LLMs on their own writings ( assuming those bigger than 100+ pages ) and what the results were.
Overall, it does sound weird. On the one hand, assuming I properly I understand what they are saying is that they removed model's ability to cheat based on their specific training. And I do get that nuance ablation is a thing, but this is not what they are discussing there. They are only removing one avenue of the model to 'cheat'. For all we know, some that data may have been part of its training set already...
'If you could classify your project as "AI," you were safe and prestigious. If you couldn't, you were nobody. Overnight, most engineers got rebranded as "not AI talent."'
It hits weirdly close to home. Our leadership did not technically mandate use, but 'strongly encourages' it. I did not even have my review yet, but I know that once we get to the goals part, use of AI tools will be an actual metric ( which is.. in my head somewhere between skeptic and evangelist.. dumb ).
But the 'AI talent' part fits. For mundane stuff like data model, I need full committee approval from people, who don't get it anyway ( and whose entire contribution is: 'what other companies are doing' ).
To anyone wondering ( as I have seen this conversation pop up before with interesting questions ), it is a relatively recent neologism resulting from shape rotator meme -- the natural antagonist of the wordcel.
I never read Synthetic Serendipity though so you got me curious.