Did you say... 100 million? Active players...? Is this some different marketing based definition of 'Active players' that I'm not familiar with?

I'm checking the current consecutive player count on a Friday night, and it looks like across several titles it doesn't even crack 200k consecutive players right now.

why...? is it because their parents are the ones with the money?

how big a market do you think they need for their console businesses to be sustainable?

https://arcinstitute.org/tools...

This produces candidates. The vast majority of candidates will never be useful for anything, and as noted even in the abstract a significant amount of testing will be required on any product produced this way, just like it would be in any other situation. This is barely an iterative step when one considers this particular model's direct lineage is over 5 years old and it draws on decades of prior work, it's not doing anything new. It's just using a prediction system to generate candidates in a similar way to the way researchers would have previously... often using other software systems that work in a variety of ways.

As someone with contact with this kind of work, I'd expect there to be a significant amount of noise in the data and an awful lot of structures that don't actually work in the real physical world, with only a few select candidates getting lucky... The folks imagining this is just going to create fully formed phages have nothing to worry about and, frankly, should learn to differentiate between function and narrative.

I think we established already that the reason is *they can't afford the pricetag*

If that's what they're looking for, I hope they discover that they can buy a (comparatively) cheap laptop and play thousands of inexpensive friendslop games, not all of which are actually slop at all.

I don't know whether this is what they're referring to, but it seems like Microsoft had an investor call earlier in the year where they agreed that they had done some things that made gaming worse on Windows 11, and there was a youtube interview with Bill Gates I remember seeing a while back that had a bunch of comparison benchmarks between games running on Windows and Linux.

Obviously Bill isn't 'microsoft' so idk, maybe they're being hyperbolic. I doubt that's a message Microsoft would put out in that form too.

Just checking... are you saying you've never heard of proton?

Same, but at the same time I've been shocked over the years by the resistance some people have to learning really basic things that would help them in their day to day lives.

I wonder if people caught up in buying the new annual iteration of the CoD/FIFA/NBA franchise can expand their horizons... but I'm guessing most of them only have a certain amount of effort to put into thinking about it.

Sony already announced that the PS6 will be of a comparable price.

Unless their victory is allowing Microsoft to loosen their belt a bit, I can't see where they're winning here.

Now now, don't be sensible. They can't exploit a perceived differential in capacity if you're sensible and point out that agents are only useful in what turn out to be inherently unsafe situations... it's almost like the whole point was to be able to have someone smarter than oneself take care of the scary things, and blame them if we don't succeed without effort.

It's sort of an interesting admission from the management class about how they already treat technical staff, if you look at it from the right angle.

There is no safeguard that will be effective here. They can't be more creative than people who have experiences they haven't considered, and the risk isn't just from people with intent.
It is not meaningful to say 'safeguards' or 'guardrails' over and over. These things are abstract ideas that, while they are necessary for the current commercial conceptualisation of how AI should work... the universe is not obligated to create.
It is similarly not meaningful to call the output a 'hallucination' when it follows pathways that don't lead you to a personally pleasing answer.

The thing is... we've known this since the late 70s, in the math... and it's been reconfirmed over and over. And understanding the math... the reasons why are completely obvious.

This is a grift that relies on the grifters not being held responsible because they couldn't have known better. Don't let them tell you that they couldn't have known better.

Demanding that a collaborator be removed from a paper so they can take his place is certainly already academic misconduct.

Bubek appears to have admitted to academic misconduct and an attempt at intimidation, and he somehow thought "but actually I walked it back immediately/I wasn't really serious" was sufficient defense. He also seems to claim that he was the one who initiated contact... which makes the problem worse, not better.

None of that has anything to do with whether or not an AI did anything new, unique or special.

This makes sense until you learn their capital expenditure is increasing at a relative rate, meaning that they're making an even bigger loss off of those profits.

not even deeply disappointing, just mundane old disappointing.

The Millenium prizes weren't about massive impressive computational achievements, and true to form this counterexample is actually useless for actual Navier-Stokes sims, provides zero efficiency gains, doesn't even preclude input ranges that anyone would actually use, etc.

The prizes were set at that level with the idea that the prize money was small enough to encourage individual mathematicians to engage with these problems, or encourage non-mathematicians to seriously engage with math. They were small enough that it was judged that larger corporations wouldn't engage with them because the problems themselves weren't really anything they could profit off directly without also contributing to their competitors.

It is typical of OpenAI's lack of strategic foresight that they'd tell people in the press release that they spent $20 million dollars for a $1 million dollar prize. They just wanted to tick a box, and again true to form they completely devalued the achievement in the process.

even without the Carlin quote, why would I want an average person to do specialist work?