(pssht, don’t tell them)

If he didn’t earn his place in Elysium, I’ll kill everyone in Valhalla and then myself

I don’t believe in such trite charlatanery

“But I’ve learned about imaginary numbers in mathematics degree” well, that and $20 dollars will buy you an egg

5g > 2g if g is positive

I mean, it’s the word I’ve heard used for this all my life, and it’s much shorter than “installing software without an app store”.

It’s not bad journalism to use terms of art.

The answer is disappointingly simple: emotional satisfaction.

For decades, these people have been told that they are incredibly generous towards their allies, and that they get nothing in return. That their allies are abusing their relationships. Of course this is false, but they’ve been told so every day.

Now they get to abuse their “abusers” right back.

My god.

There are many parameters that you set before training a new model, one of which (simplified) is the size of the model, or (roughly) the number of neurons. There isn’t any natural lower or upper bound for the size, instead you choose it based on the hardware you want to run the model on.

Now the promise from OpenAI (from their many papers, and press releases, and …) was that we’ll be able to reach AGI by scaling. Part of the reason why Microsoft invested so much money into OpenAI was their promise of far greater capabilities for the models, given enough hardware. Microsoft wanted to build a moat.

Now, through DeepSeek, you can scale even further with that hardware. If Microsoft really thought OpenAI could reach ChatGPT 5, 6 or whatever through scaling, they’d keep the GPUs for themselves to widen their moat.

But they’re not doing that, instead they’re scaling back their investments, even though more advanced models will most likely still use more hardware on average. Don’t forget that there are many players in this field that keep bushing the bounds. If ChatGPT 4.5 is any indication, they’ll have to scale up massively to keep any advantage compared to the market. But they’re not doing that.

But really the “game” is the model. Throwing more hardware at the same model is like throwing more hardware at the same game.

No, it’s not! AI models are supposed to scale. When you throw more hardware at them, they are supposed to develop new abilities. A game doesn’t get a new level because you’re increasing the resolution.

At this point, you either have a fundamental misunderstanding of AI models, or you’re trolling.

I’m supposed to be able to take a model architecture from today, scale it up 100x and get an improvement. I can’t make the settings in Crysis 100x higher than they can go.

Games always have a limit, AI is supposed to get better with scale. Which part do you not understand?

It’s still not a valid comparison. We’re not talking about diminished returns, we’re talking about an actual ceiling. There are only so many options implemented in games - once they’re maxed out, you can’t go higher.

That’s not the situation we have with AI, it’s supposed to scale indefinitely.

Bobs and vageen?

If a new driver came out that gave Nvidia 5090 performance to games with gtx1080 equivalent hardware would you still buy a new video card this year?

It doesn’t make any sense to compare games and AI. Games have a well-defined upper bound for performance. Even Crysis has “maximum settings” that you can’t go above. Supposedly, this doesn’t hold true for AI, scaling it should continually improve it.

So: yes, in your analogy, MS would still buy a new video card this year if they believed in the progress being possible and reasonably likely.

I’m gonna disagree - it’s not like DeepSeek uncovered some upper limit to how much compute you can throw at the problem. More efficient hardware use should be amazing for AI since it allows you to scale even further.

This means that MS isn’t expecting these data centers to generate enough revenue to be profitable, and they’re not willing to bet on further advancements that might make them profitable. In other words, MS doesn’t have a positive outlook for AI.

Or: people who play new games in this style :) two examples I’ve enjoyed very much are Lorn’s Lure and ULTRAKILL.

I’d be fine if you didn’t tell people they only dislike the 3DS because they are repeating what others are saying about 3D TVs.

While we’re at it, the 3DS sold 75 million units.

Nintendo 3DS: 25.96 million

Nintendo 3DS XL: 19.64 million

Nintendo 2DS: 10.29 million

New Nintendo 3DS XL: 12.25 million

New Nintendo 3DS: 2.49 million

New Nintendo 2DS XL: 4.41 million

These are the sales numbers I was able to quickly find. Roughly 15 million “New 3DS (XL)” vs 75 million total devices, or ~60 million 3D devices. So for every person that tried a New 3DS, 3 people only tried the old one.

And you’re surprised, even “shocked”, that most people still think about the old 3DS when talking about the 3DS 3D effect? Shocked enough to attribute it to people just repeating what other people said about 3D TVs?

The only thing I’ve seen mentioned is the bad stability of the stereoscopy and the narrow angle of the original model, which was solved with the same eye tracking solution we see here.

Yes, and I’ve explained to you that many people probably never tried the fixed version. So why say “people are just repeating what they’re heard about 3D TVs”? You’re attributing an infantilizing explanation to all those who disagree, when a more logical and direct explanation was already given.

I get that people were mad at the OG 3DS, mostly as part of a bit of a mob mentality memetic rejection of 3D TVs

Not sure why you’re bringing this up in a discussion where multiple people have given other reasons for “being mad” (or, more objectively, disliking) the OG 3DS.

You’re acting in pretty bad faith.

I’m not mad, I was simply disappointed enough by the original 3DS that I didn’t want to spend more money on a different version of it.

Is it somehow important to you that people like it?

Was it your first Nintendo handheld, then?

No, but it was my last