it's not. We were able to get rid of 6 fingered hands by getting very specific, and fine tuning models with lots of hand and finger training data.
But that approach doesn't work with code, or with reasoning in general, because you would need to exponentially fine tune everything in the universe. The illusion that the AI "understands" what it is doing is lost.
I am a new initiate into the world of 3d printing for minis. I decided a resin printer does not suit my small apartment lifestyle, and got an Elegoo Centauri Carbon FDM printer. It's pretty plug-and-play, there was very little setup required.
www.reddit.com/r/FDMminiatures/ will give you an idea of the level of quality you can reach. With the smallest 0.2mm nozzle, will it reach resin levels? Close but not really. Is it good enough for me to screw around with, improve my painting skills, and play casual games? Certainly.
Also I subbed to the OnePageRules patreon, they offer alternative minis and rulebooks that are very similar to GW, with an alternate for fantasy and 40K, as well as fleet battles and other stuff.
I have not found that to be the case, the books I have read have gone into deep foundational detail to build up knowledge. Perhaps you're referring to Vol 1 & 2 of "The Art Of Problem Solving"? I haven't read them but from what I know they are a distillation of core concepts for students looking to do competitive maths.
It's confusing because that title is also the name of the publisher / website of the series of the books I'm reading.
I took a brief detour late last year to study "Linear Algebra: Theory, Intuition, Code", and to my surprise it stuck pretty well. The author said the pre-reqs were just "basic high school math", but I'm glad I had recently done lots of algebra and geometry, as the difference between that and some vague memories of stuff I did 30 years ago in school is pretty wide.
I haven't started any 3d game projects yet. For that, my plan is to do the webgpufundamentals.org course first. Scanning the TOC, I think I would be able to attempt it from what I learned from the linear algebra book.
That said, I'm doing AOPS Intermediate Algebra at the moment, and the Precalc text covers more advanced trig and matrix stuff, so I'm thinking it would be good to finish at least to there before starting to apply the knowledge.
Just self study with the (physical) books. I did also try the ebook combo for the Prealgebra book, but I found typing latex in the answers to the exercises was cumbersome.
I think the online classes with interactive lessons is a separate thing, but I don't have any experience with that.
My theory is that people who like math have a reward system that responds well to gaining an understanding on empirical concepts. I have that, and it does drive me to keep studying math. Not that I find it easy though, I don't think I'm able to skip steps, and I often have to repeat things I've already done before they sink in. The difference is that I find this process enjoyable, so I don't mind spending the time.
If I can compare to another activity, I've always wanted to be an artist as well, and have spend quite a bit of time trying to build up the skills. The problem is that, if I'm honest with myself, is I just don't enjoy the process of creative expression, it doesn't trigger any reward system that means anything for me. I wish it did but there's just nothing there. It was a hard pill to swallow, but I realized I like the idea of being an artist, but I don't enjoy the process. Hence my ultimately crummy artwork!
Sorry, I realized I'm talking about myself more than you, but I hope it's some help. The point I hope it makes is that everyone has a different personality, and from that different reward systems. It sounds to me like yours doesn't align with math, and that's fine. I wouldn't try to force yourself to study something which you don't love, at least if it's optional self study. Find subjects that you love learning, and the results will come naturally.
I've been doing similar for about a year. My target is to learn the math needed to make 3d games, so basically algebra, geometry, calculus and linear algebra.
I started with brilliant.org, and while I liked the level of polish in the interactive lessons, I found the lesson structure to be out of sequence, often referring to things that haven't been covered yet. They didn't seem to have put as much thought into pedagogy as Math Academy as described in TFA.
So I gave up on that and instead have been shipping several kilograms of dead tree across the pacific in the form of The Art Of Problem Solving series of textbooks. They are great, the lesson structure and building up of complex ideas from first principles is outstanding. They will humble you though, as the exercises are tough. They're also quite expensive but IMHO worth it.
Math Academy does look interesting, If I was not halfway through my series I would probably take a look. But I do enjoy having reference books on hand. Many times I've jumped back to brush up on a topic that has slipped from memory.
I solve my exercises with the most low tech solution possible, but I like the freedom it gives me to try new approaches, and nothing beats the latency between idea to ink on paper.
edit: also wanted to add that I've enrolled Chat GPT4 as my tutor. Contrary to many other's experiences that I've read, I find it to generally be very good at reasoning in this level of mathematics. It's helped me many times when I've gotten stuck. And on the occasions where it bullshitted its way to an incorrect answer, I always challenge it if I don't understand, and we ultimately find out if it hallucinated something (rare, can usually be fixed by restating the problem), or I gave it the wrong input to start with (unfortunately more common than I'd like)
Math as prep for 3d game programming. I've been out of school a long time, and when I was there I didn't even get to the pre-calculus level.
This year I've churned through all the introductory level texts from Art Of Problem Solving. Yes, they're written for high schoolers and you need to have some humility to admit you might be missing or have forgotten some fundamentals, but the lesson strucutre really appeals to me. It's the only series I've found that respects the learner and really builds up knowledge one piece at a time.
Before I start the intermediate texts and the calculus book, I've taken a detour to "Linear Algebra: Theory, Intuition, Code" and it's sticking a lot better now than previous attempts on the subject. So that gives me some confidence.
I was at Charles Sturt University in 95, and have fond memories of starting up Trumpet Winsock on the computer lab's Windows machines and telnetting into a chat mud called Forest (Forrest?), which I'm pretty sure was hosted at UTS. Or was it one of the other Sydney unis?
Anyway, it was insane that you could text chat with these other users in the ether, disconnected from physical reality but still able to message in real time. Certainly shaped my experiences of the early Internet.
Like others have said, it's more common to use an existing game engine these days, but if you want to do it yourself, the modern version that I think comes closest is Lengyel's Foundation of Game Engine Development series [0]. To me this series looks to be a rewrite and extension of his earlier book "Mathematics for 3D Game Programming and Computer Graphics".
The first book covers the mathematics needed, the second is on Rendering and is when it starts to get into real graphics applications. Third and Fourth are slated to be Models/Materials and Physics respectively, but neither have been released yet.
There should be a good opportunity for whoever can implement an LLM that listens in on chat platforms like slack and discord and constructs a wiki from it.
Bonus points if it also chats back with answers to questions, linking to the docs as needed.
But that approach doesn't work with code, or with reasoning in general, because you would need to exponentially fine tune everything in the universe. The illusion that the AI "understands" what it is doing is lost.