They take a 30% cut on Steam, i.e. on most PC games. They are printing money. They have an absurdly high profit-per-employee ratio. That's a failure of capitalism, called rent seeking.
having a high profit-per-employee is not the definition of rent seeking.
valve is certainly not rent-seeking. it offers service that is valuable to users, and take care of online infrastructure for games published through it, indefinitely, at no running cost to the developer.
It's not "high", it's extremely high. They just have a few hundred employees while making several millions of profit per employee. More than Apple. They are printing money.
> valve is certainly not rent-seeking. it offers service that is valuable to users,
A 30% fee just for hosting the game is not valuable.
> and take care of online infrastructure for games published through it, indefinitely, at no running cost to the developer.
The cost is substantial. It costs the developer 30%. That's a huge chunk of the total revenue. Hosting a game is very cheap, and could probably be done with less than a 3% fee. Often Valve will make more profit from a game than the developer itself. Sometimes the developer will lose money (after subtracting development cost) but Valve will still make a big profit with that game.
Their high profit is indicative of the high level of value they provide. They're far from the only store to buy/sell games in. Steam's users use Steam because they prefer it to the alternatives.
While I can't argue whether 30% is actually fair, I do believe you are disregarding some benefits steam brings which may seem trivial. The hosting of online-games and facilitation of sales is not their only service. One that has traceable value that immediately comes to mind is the illusion of a central authority for achievements.
I have personally purchased many titles a second time to register my feats with steam and anecdotally see similar sentiment among older gamers. Achievements feel worthless in isolation but provide fulfillment when socially recognized. These are sales being manifested solely through Steam's position.
Now, back to whether this social permanence is worth the 30% Steam is extracting, I do have my opinions. Steam is technically "rent-seeking" from a strict economic classification, but is this more-so a case of the lighthouse or the railroad?
its probably low compare what customers and game developers are willing to pay for it.
hosting a game and running a store nowdays is very easy, but still games launch on steam rather than building their own store or using a steam competitor. if the cost was too high, people would not be using the service
> Steam factually provides a huge amount of value to both developers and to players.
This is an outright falsehood. Other providers could host those games for much less than the 30% fee. Hosting costs are extremely low nowadays. It's basically nothing compared to the development cost of an AAA game. This is often many years and hundreds of people working on a game. The hosting costs are completely minor in comparison.
By your definition, any monopoly selling you strongly overpriced stuff would be a "huge success of capitalism". But it isn't. Just because something is useful, doesn't mean it can't be massively overpriced due to competition not working as it should. Proper market competition should ensure that no company can extract huge profit margins for trivial things. Like hosting games.
Epic, Steam's only serious competitor currently aside from maybe GoG, just had a bug in their launcher that had all Fortnite players have to redownload their entire 150~ GB game. The cost of hosting aside, the capabilities of these companies to host their own games pales in comparison to Valve, who hasn't had a single bug in downloading or updating any game in the decade and a half I have used their launcher.
Considering how alternative storefronts can't even get automatic updates to work consistently, the most basic functionality of a games storefront (more important than purchasing even, since if you can't get what you purchased, it's useless), it actually doesn't seem obvious to me that other providers can easily host their own games. Even putting aside everything else Valve uses their cut for (hosting a community forum for every game, hosting a mod DB for every game that wants it, metrics tracking, opt-in soft DRM, providing server hosting, maintaining Proton so your game works on Linux), the cut seems almost reasonable even just for hosting when nobody else is able to do it right.
I use steam to launch the games i get from epic and gog. Epic's launcher is so bad that i use their web store to manage inventory and often can't remember if i own a game on epic unless it's set to launch via steam.
It can be helpful to look at it less in terms of what it costs Valve to run their service and more in terms of what value developers get from Valve for the money.
I'm in the business and I've asked two different heads of large, very well-known AAA studios how they felt about Valve's percentage, and they basically told me the same thing: They had their teams do rigorous analyses of what it would cost them to 'replace' Valve for their games, and concluded it would cost roughly what they were already paying Valve. So they had no incentive to move off the platform. Look at how many publishers have come slinking back to Steam after trying to go solo -- there are good business reasons for that, and it isn't just about the stubborn fact of their huge social graph.
If it costs that much to replace Valve for your game, it's hard to argue that what they're charging isn't fair.
As others have pointed out, Valve does far more than just host. Shipping a multiplayer game and want comprehensive protection from DDoS attacks? Use Valve's datagram network for no additional fee. Don't want to host your own lobby servers? Use Valve's for no additional fee, they'll accommodate hundreds of thousands of players with no complaints. Want to sell your game in a zillion countries? Valve's got you, easy peasy. And discovery is a thing -- Valve sells a whooole lot of games just by putting them in the carousel in front of players. This is huge, huge value.
And as a player, I'm actually really happy, super happy, did I mention how incredibly happy I am with what they're doing with some of their cut: They saved gaming on Linux -- it's often better than Windows -- and I love my SteamDeck. So that cut is benefiting me directly as a consumer because they're spending it on initiatives I'm really passionate about.
Valve delivers a ton of value for the cost. If someone wants to try to do better, Valve's not stopping them, but I can tell you that as a player and a gamedev, none of the other options are remotely enticing to me. In my view, that's not Valve's problem to solve by cratering their own revenue.
> Other providers could host those games for much less than the 30% fee. Hosting costs are extremely low nowadays. It's basically nothing compared to the development cost of an AAA game. This is often many years and hundreds of people working on a game. The hosting costs are completely minor in comparison.
Steam does far more than just host, and everyone who uses it knows this, so it's clear that you either have no idea what Steam does (in which case you should not be commenting) or you're actively lying about it.
Steam provides payment processing, cloud saves, ratings, game tags, social integration, wishlisting and sale notification, search indexing, game discovery, a bunch of incredibly useful APIs including networking and input, Linux compatibility, and many, many other things.
> By your definition, any Monopoly selling you strongly overpriced stuff would be a "huge success of capitalism".
This is not only false, due to the above value-adds, but intentionally false because I never gave a definition - you made one up and attributed it to me to lie about my positions.
And yes, there is competition - the fact that you don't know this is yet another indicator that you're totally ignorant of anything relevant to the conversation. There's the Epic Games Store, GOG, the EA App, Battle.net, the Xbox one/Windows Store, and more. And you know what the most popular one is, by a large margin, because it provides value to both devs and players? Steam. That's the market at work.
Your comments are false due to your total ignorance of reality, and your malicious lying about my statements indicates that you don't care that they're false - you'll say anything plausible, regardless of truth, to advance whatever agenda you have.
> Your comments are false due to your total ignorance of reality, and your malicious lying about my statements indicates that you don't care that they're false - you'll say anything plausible, regardless of truth, to advance whatever agenda you have.
They seem to live in this bubble where steam is extremely bad or something.
Nothing is as good or as bad as it seems.
I think valve is still decent but I prefer Gog-games more if I can be honest, valve has drm but I appreciate their customer service from what I know and the amount of good games it produced like portal and the steam marketplace is still a very nice thing imo.
I don't think steam is rent-seeking at all and I agree with your statement on it.
Now I still believe that CS-GO's lootboxes are still an issue tho, maybe I am not understanding the significance of change so much
Steam still does nothing to prevent gambling for children and people selling the skins on the other websites, I am not understanding how this change changes that, I read some other comment in here which said that you can have contracts which convert the rare to extremely rare Only in steam marketplace so maybe they stopped the other shady websites/the youtubers they sponsor by limiting their influence....
I don't understand :/ I still feel like Steam had turned a blind eye to child gambling for a long time and Coffeezilla had made a video about it which I can refer to.
> There's the Epic Games Store, GOG, the EA App, Battle.net, the Xbox one/Windows Store, and more. And you know what the most popular one is, by a large margin, because it provides value to both devs and players? Steam. That's the market at work.
The same is true for linux/Windows as well. You could say that windows has the market at work but the point becomes moot.
It isn't as if there aren't better options (GOG) but that its rather good enough
Like I said nothing is as good or as bad as it seems, my opinion on steam is barely good enough partially because of its previous responses on turning a blind eye to the whole situation but maybe this is changing with this thing they did right now but I am still not sure how.
Yes, of course, I'm not claiming that Steam is some utopic paradise or that GabeN is a saint or anything. Steam has problems too - most notably the huge skins gambling issue that you mention. I'm just specifically saying that out of all of its problems, "rent-seeking" is definitely not one of them.
> The same is true for linux/Windows as well. You could say that windows has the market at work but the point becomes moot.
Yes, there's additional detail that I didn't add - that, unlike Microsoft, which used (and continues to use) anticompetitive tactics like paying PC manufacturers to include Windows as the default option, Steam didn't do anything anticompetitive to become the most popular - they were just the best - and they haven't done anything to unfairly leverage their dominant market position. That doesn't strike me as a problem - and my point to the GP was specifically that they're the most popular because they're the best, not because they did scummy backroom deals to get there.
I agree that GOG is probably better. But Steam is "good enough", and modulo the gambling problem, isn't really "bad".
Yea I agree rent seeking is definitely not the problem, huge skins gambling is.
> modulo the gambling problem, isn't really "bad".
Can you please explain to me what you mean by this. I feel like valve enabled skins gambling which even underage people could do for a long time, so there is some truth about it and coffeezilla made a video about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13eiDhuvM6Y
I am just saying the ethics of the company isn't perfect when they enabled gambling for a long time, I am not sure if right now it can be fixed or how this steps that they did right now fixes that problem if I am being honest.
Other services do the same for arbitrary online shops, at much lower fees. In fact, Valve likely doesn't even run it's own payment processing, but merely integrates other services.
> cloud saves, ratings, game tags, social integration, wishlisting and sale notification, search indexing, game discovery, a bunch of incredibly useful APIs including networking and input, Linux compatibility
The development cost of these features is likely no larger than of one single AAA game. Yet they charging 30% on hundreds or thousands of AAA games and other games.
> This is not only false, due to the above value-adds, but intentionally false because I never gave a definition - you made one up and attributed it to me to lie about my positions.
You clearly stated that Steam is fine because it is useful. But anything sold by a monopoly can be useful while still being massively overpriced. Which proves that mere usefulness of something doesn't mean the price of it is justified. Which refutes your original usefulness argument.
> And yes, there is competition
Yes, but the fact that there is theoretically competition doesn't mean it is working. Large platforms like Steam benefit from network effects which come from their size alone. People will simply stay at Steam because that's already were their other games are, and because they don't see the massive 30% fee, that Valve is keeping, as some cost they have to pay. Any other platform faces a "chicken and egg" style uphill battle against these effects, even if they charge a substantially lower fee.
> Your comments are false due to your total ignorance of reality, and your malicious lying
Rather than hurling insults at me consider the simple question: If Steam was so fairly priced, wasn't charging excessive fees, how can it be that they have an extremely high profit margin? Realistically, that can only be because Valve's revenue from Steam vastly exceeds the costs of running and maintaining it.
> > cloud saves, ratings, game tags, social integration, wishlisting and sale notification, search indexing, game discovery, a bunch of incredibly useful APIs including networking and input, Linux compatibility
> The development cost of these features is likely no larger than of one single AAA game
Then surely Epic, or Microsoft, or Sony could just easily create one. There being literally 0 such services means it's likely a bit more difficult than one AAA game :) So your argument is invalid.
It goes down to 20% when you have enough sales. Still high IMO. Marketplaces like steam, app store, etc, should charge based on services rendered rather than some arbitrary %.
I still prefer steam even if its more expensive than other marketplaces. They provide real value over just distribution, like their return policy.
> Other services do the same for arbitrary online shops, at much lower fees. In fact, Valve likely doesn't even run it's own payment processing, but merely integrates other services.
Irrelevant strawman argument. It doesn't matter that Valve doesn't run its own payment processing - it still provides an easier platform for use than going to Stripe and figuring out how to connect user purchase to game licenses.
> The development cost of these features is likely no larger than of one single AAA game. Yet they charging 30% on hundreds or thousands of AAA games and other games.
OK, so now you've both admitted that you were factually incorrect on your original assertion that the only value that Steam provided was hosting, and you've moved the goalposts from "Steam doesn't do anything except hosting" to "well those features aren't worth the cost", which is completely different.
So, we've completely disproved your original claim that Steam is "rent-seeking", because these features provide immense value to both developers and players.
And, that claim about "The development cost of these features is likely no larger than of one single AAA game"? Completely unfounded. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Multiplayer networking is hard, and you're claiming that ALL of the features that Steam provides are comparable to that of a single AAA game.
Also, funny that you mention "one single AAA game" - whose costs can go into the billions of dollars.
> You clearly stated that Steam is fine because it is useful.
Stop trying to justify your lying about my points, please. Admit that you acted dishonestly out of malice and we can move on to any actual points you might have.
> But anything sold by a monopoly can be useful while still being massively overpriced.
More goalpost-moving (you originally claimed that Steam was both "a failure of capitalism" and "rent-seeking" - these claims are completely different), that turns out to not even be relevant because Steam is a monopoly along no relevant dimension. There is nothing that prevents you from creating both a Steam account and an Epic Games account, or a developer from selling on both Steam and the EA store. You can even install non-Steam games on Valve's own hardware. You even concede that there is competition later in this very comment.
> Which proves that mere usefulness of something doesn't mean the price of it is justified. Which refutes your original usefulness argument.
No, it doesn't, because both your first point has no connection whatsoever to your second, and you neither proved that Steam was overpriced, nor actually refuted any of my points as stated in my comments - merely twisted and lied about them. Where do I say "useful" in my original comment?
> Large platforms like Steam benefit from network effects which come from their size alone. People will simply stay at Steam because that's already were their other games are, and because they don't see the massive 30% fee, that Valve is keeping, as some cost they have to pay. Any other platform faces a "chicken and egg" style uphill battle against these effects, even if they charge a substantially lower fee.
This is fallacious. There is no "stay at Steam" - as previously stated, there's zero mutual exclusion between Steam and other platforms on either the dev or the player side. And there's no "chicken and egg" uphill battle either, because Steam accounts don't cost money, and so unlike trying to start a new paid streaming platform where you can't attract users because there's no content, and you can't sign content deals because there's no users. This is an inaccurate, irrelevant, and dishonest analogy.
> Rather than hurling insults at me
You literally lied about my points. That's not an insult - that's a fact. Don't lie if you don't want someone to correctly describe when you're lying.
> consider the simple question: If Steam was so fairly priced, wasn't charging excessive fees, how can it be that they have an extremely high profit margin?
That's a twisted definition of "excessive". Your "excessive" is "Valve charges more than it costs them to provide services". Very few people in the real world (which includes me, most HN users, and most people who actually play games, given that you probably don't) actually operate on that model, and instead consider "excessive" to be either relative to value delivered to them, or to comparable alternatives. Almost nobody, when making a value decision about whether or not to buy a new phone consider the profit margins to the phone manufacturers - they only care about the value delivered to them, which is as it should be, because...
> Realistically, that can only be because Valve's revenue from Steam vastly exceeds the costs of running and maintaining it.
Valve does not have an obligation to price their services at cost, or close to cost. They're entirely entitled to price their services at the amount of value delivered to their customers, without any judgement whatsoever.
So, to summarize - we've objectively refuted your claims that Steam is "rent-seeking", pointed out several more dishonest rhetorical tricks and redefinitions of common words that you've used, including revealing that your claims of "Valve bad" are merely personal indignation that Valve makes more money than you think that they should, and confirmed that yes, you did lie about my earlier points.
It is better to be consistent but wrong, than inconsistent but correct.
Consistent and correct might seem ideal, but merely the fact that what is 'correct' is in the eye of the beholder most of the time, making it basically unobtainable.
But being consistent is at least something that is far less subjective.
What makes you look at existing AI systems and then say "oh, this totally isn't capable of describing a problem or figuring out what's actually wrong"? Let alone "this wouldn't EVER be capable of that"?
> What makes you look at existing AI systems and then say "oh, this totally isn't capable of describing a problem or figuring out what's actually wrong"?
I wouldn't say they're completely incapable.
* They can spot (and fix) low hanging fruit instantly
* They will also "fix" things that were left out there for a reason and break things completely
* even if the code base fits entirely in their context window, as does the complete company knowledge base, including Slack conversations etc., the proposed solutions sometimes take a very strange turn, in spite of being correct 57.8% of the time.
That's about right. And this kind of performance wouldn't be concerning - if only AI performance didn't go up over time.
Today's AI systems are the worst they'll ever be. If AI is already capable of doing something, you should expect it to become more capable of it in the future.
It's a self-evident truth. Even if today, at this very moment AI hits a hard plateau and there's nothing we can do to make AI better, ever, then this still holds true. It simply means we'll keep what we have right now. Any new model will be a step back and thus be discarded. So what we have today is the worst, and the best it will ever be. But barring that extremely unlikely scenario, like GPT-3 to GPT-4 and Claude 3 to Claude 4, we will see improvements (either incremental or abrupt) over the coming weeks/months/years. Any failed experiments will never see the light of day and the successful experiments will become Claude X or GPT X, etc.
By now, the main reason people expect AI progress to halt is cope. People say "AI progress is going to stop, any minute now, just you wait" because the alternative makes them very, very uncomfortable.
Well, to use the processor analogy, with models we reached the situations where the clocks can't do that much more. So the industry switched to multiplying cores etc. but you can actually see the slope plateauing. There are wild developments for the general public like the immediate availability of gpt-oss-120b that I'm running on my MBP right now, there is Claude Code that can work for weeks doing various stuff and being right half of the time, that's all great, but we can all see development of the SOTA models has slowed down and what we are seeing are very nice and useful incremental improvements, not great breakthroughs like we had 3-4 years ago.
(NB I'm a very rational person and based on my lifelong experience and on how many times life surprised me both negatively and positively, I'd say the chance of a great breakthrough occurring short term is 50%, but it has nothing to do or cannot be extrapolated from the current development as this can go any way actually. We already had multiple AI winters and I'm sure humanity will have dozens if not hundreds of them still.)
Plateauing? OpenAI's o1 is revolutionary, less than a year old, and already obsolete.
Are you disappointed that there's no sudden breakthrough that yielded an AI that casually beats any human at any task? That human thinking wasn't obsoleted overnight? That may or may not happen yet. But a "slow" churn of +10% performance upgrades results in the same outcome eventually.
There's only this many "+10% performance upgrades" left between ChatGPT and the peak of human capabilities, and the gap is ever diminishing.
I think the reason people feel it's plateauing is because the new improvements are less evident to the average person. When we saw GPT-4 I think we all had that "holy shit" moment. I'm talking to a computer, it understands what I'm saying, and responds eloquently. The Turing test, effectively. That's probably the most advanced benchmark humans can intuitively assess. Then there's abstract maths, which most people don't understand, or the fact that this entity that talks to me like an intelligent human being, when left to reason about something on its own devolves into hallucinations over time. All real issues, but much less tangible, since we can't relate it to behaviours we observe or recognize as meaningful in humans. We've never met a human that can write a snake game from memory in 20 seconds without errors, but can't think on its own for 5 minutes before breaking down into psychosis, which is effectively what GPT-4 was/is. After the release of GPT-4 we strayed well outside of the realm of what we can intuitively measure or reason about without the use of artificial benchmarks.
> By now, the main reason people expect AI progress to halt is cope. People say "AI progress is going to stop, any minute now, just you wait" because the alternative makes them very, very uncomfortable.
OK, so where is the new data going to come from? Fundamentally, LLMs work by doing token prediction when some token(s) are masked. This process (which doesn't require supervision hence why it scaled) seems to be fundamental to LLM improvement. And basically all of the AI companies have slurped up all of the text (and presumably all of the videos) on the internet. Where does the next order of magnitude increase in data come from?
More fundamentally, lots of the hype is about research/novel stuff which seems to me to be very, very difficult to get from a model that's trained to produce plausible text. Like, how does one expect to see improvements in biology (for example) based on text input and output.
Remember, these models don't appear to reason much like humans, they seem to do well where the training data is sufficient (interpolation) and do badly where there isn't enough data (extrapolation).
I'd love to understand how this is all supposed to change, but haven't really seen much useful evidence (i.e. papers and experiments) on this, just AI CEOs talking their book. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.
That's not true. And trust me, dude, it scares the living ** out of me, so I wish you were right. Next-token prediction is the AI-equivalent of a baby flailing its arms around and learning basic concepts about the world around it. The AI learns to mimic human behavior and recognize patterns, but it doesn't learn how to leverage this behavior to achieve goals. The pre-training is simply giving the AI a baseline understanding of the world. Everything that's going on now, getting it to think (i.e. talking to itself to solve more complex tasks), or getting it do do maths or coding, is simply us directing that inherent knowledge it's gathered from its pre-training and teaching the AI how to use it.
Look at Claude Code. Unless they hacked into private GitHub/GitLab repos... (which, honestly, I wouldn't put beyond these tech CEO's, see what CloudFlare recently found out about Perplexity as an example), but unless they really did that, they trained Claude 4 on approximately the same data as Claude 3. Yet for some reason its agentic coding skills are stupidly enhanced when compared to previous iterations.
Data no longer seems to be the bottleneck. Which is understandable. At the end of the day, data is really just a way to get the AI to make a predicion and run gradient descent on it. If you can generate for example a bunch of unit tests, you can let the AI freewheel its way into getting them to pass. A kid learns to catch a baseball not by seeing a million examples of people catching balls, but instead by testing their skills in the real world, and gathering feedback from the real world on whether their attempt to catch the ball was successful. If an AI can try to achieve goals and assess whether or not its actions lead to a successful or a failed attempt, who needs more data?
Fundamentally the bottleneck is on data and compute. If we accept as a given that a) some LLM is bad at writing eg rust code because there's much less of it on the Internet compared to say react js code but that b) the LLM is able to generate valid rust code and c) the LLM is able to "tool use"the rust compiler and a runtime to validate the rust it generates, and iterate until the code is valid, and finally d) use that generated rust code to train on, then it seems that barring any algorithmic improvements in training, that the additional data should allow later versions of the LLM to be better at writing rust code. If you don't hold a-d to be possible then sure, maybe it's just AI CEOs talking their book.
The other fundamental bottleneck is compute. Moore's law hasn't gone away, so if the LLM was GPT-3, and used 1 supercomputer's worth of compute for 3 months back in 2022, and the supercomputer used for training is, say, three times more powerful (3x faster CPU and 3x the RAM), then training on a latest generation supercomputer should lead to a more powerful LLM simply by virtue of scaling that up and no algorithmic changes. The exact nature of the improvement isn't easily back of the envelope calculatable, but even with a laymen's understanding of how these things work, that doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption on how things will go, and not "AI CEOs talking their book". Simply running with a bigger context window should allow the LLM to be more useful.
Finally though, why do you assume that, absent papers up on arvix, that there haven't and won't be any algorithmic improvements to training and inference? We've already seen how allowing the LLM to take longer to process the input (eg "ultrathink" to Claude) allows for better results. It seems unlikely that all possible algorithmic improvements have already been discovered and implemented. Just because OpenAI et Al aren't writing academic papers to share their discovery with the world and are, instead, preferring to keep that improvement private and proprietary, in order to try and gain a competitive edge in a very competitive business seems like a far more reasonable assumption. With literal billions of dollars on the line, would you spend your time writing a paper, or would you try and outcompete your competitors? If simply giving the LLM longer to process the input before user facing output is returned, what other algorithmic improvements on the inference side on a bigger supercomputer with more ram available to it are possible? Deepseek seems to say there's a ton of optimization still as of yet to be done.
Happy to hear opposing points of view, but I don't think any of the things I've theorized here to be totally inconceivable. Of course there's a discussion to be had about diminishing returns, but we'd need a far deeper understanding is the state of the art on all three facets I raised in order to have an in depth and practical discussion on the subject. (Which tbc I'm open to hearing, though the comments section on HN is probably not the platform to gain said deeper understanding of the subject at hand).
We are nowhere near the best learning sample efficiency possible.
Unlocking better sample efficiency is algorithmically hard and computationally expensive (with known methods) - but if new high quality data becomes more expensive and compute becomes cheaper, expect that to come into play heavily.
"Produce plausible text" is by itself an "AGI complete" task. "Text" is an incredibly rich modality, and "plausible" requires capturing a lot of knowledge and reasoning. If an AI could complete this task to perfection, it would have to be an AGI by necessity.
We're nowhere near that "perfection" - but close enough for LLMs to adopt and apply many, many thinking patterns that were once exclusive to humans.
Certainly enough of them that sufficiently scaffolded and constrained LLMs can already explore solution spaces, and find new solutions that eluded both previous generations of algorithms and humans - i.e. AlphaEvolve.
That's exactly how it works. Every input of AI performance improves over time, and so do the outcomes.
Can you damage existing capabilities by overly specializing an AI in something? Yes. Would you expect that damage to stick around forever? No.
OpenAI damaged o3's truthfulness by frying it with too much careless RL. But Anthropic's Opus 4 proves that you can get similar task performance gains without sacrificing truthfulness. And then OpenAI comes back swinging with an algorithmic approach to train their AIs for better truthfulness specifically.
Like when a relationship is obviously over. Some people enjoy the ending fleeting moments while others delude themselves that they just have to get over the hump and things will go back to normal.
I suspect a lot of the denial is from the 30 something CRUD app lottery winner. One of the smart kids all through school, graduated into a ripping CRUD app job market and then if they didn't even feel the 2022 downturn, they now see themselves as irreplaceable CRUD app genius. Something understandable since the environment has never signaled anything to the contrary until now.
My psychological reaction to what's going on is somehow pretty different.
I'm a systems/embedded/GUI dev with 25 years of C++ etc., and nearly every day I'm happy and grateful to be the last generation to get really proficient before AI tools made us all super dependant and lazy.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure people will find other ways to remain productive and stand out from each other - just a new normal -, but I'm still glad all that mental exercise and experience can't be taken away from me.
I'm more compelled to figure out how I can contribute to making sure younger colleagues learn all the right stuff and treat their brains with self-respect than I feel any need to "save my own ass" or have any fears about the job changing.
You made me think of the role of mental effort/exercise. In parts of the western world, we are already experiencing a large increase in dementia/alzheimer and related. Most of it is because we are doing better with other killers like heart etc, and many cancers also. But is said that mental activity is important to stave off degenerative diseases of the brain. Could widespread AI trigger a dementia epidemic? It would be 30 years out, but still...
Am I reading this wrong? He complaints that Valve deleted items and posts, despite them promising that it would not happen... only for the quote he provided to state that "they might not delete everything".
> Will all of my information be deleted?
Your personal information is removed, but some content you’ve posted in community areas is not. This includes things like discussion posts, or content that you posted in Steam community hubs, as well as comments you made on other Steam account’s profiles.
I read that as describing the types of content which would be deleted: "some" content but not all, and that the types of content that would not be deleted include the following: ...
I can also see how one might read that as saying that some of the following content may or may not be removed.
Yeah, I think the author was referring to community posts. The linked FAQ article says this:
"Your personal information is removed, but some content you’ve posted in community areas is not. This includes things like discussion posts, or content that you posted in Steam community hubs, as well as comments you made on other Steam account’s profiles."
But I always end up in a scenario where, in order to make the LLM spit out consistent and as precise as possible code, we end up with a very simple and tight syntax.
For example we'll be using less and less complete human sentences, because they leave too much open to interpretation, and end up with keywords like "if", "else" and "foreach". When we eventually do end up at that utopia, the first person to present this at a conference will be hailed as a revolutionist.
Only for the LLM to have a resolve clash and, while 'hallucinating', flip a boolean check.
In my country they tested adolescent children that were brought up by eating "bio" food vs people that ate regular food.
Kids that has been eating the 'healthy' "bio" food had, on average, unhealthy amounts of lead, heavy metals and other chemicals in their blood. The kids that didn't eat "bio" food didn't.
So I ask you, where should the average EU person go to?
A man who smoked two packs of cigarettes per day for years, used to comment on "people who went to Health Food Stores" .. Look, he would say, see those people? they are not very healthy.. (often people with health problems would seek a better diet).. That man smoked for 40 years, no problem! he said.. his skin suffered, he lost his sense of taste for foods.. One year he was diagnosed with Lung Cancer and died after a slow, lingering and painful illness, in his early 60s.
I don't really see what that has to do with what I posted, as it completely misses the point.
This is not about eating fast food vs eating healthy. This is about groups of people eating the same food, only that one is labeled 'bio/organic' and the other isn't.
When these people were subjected to tests, and the foods themselves were tested, it was quantifiably proven to be less healthy.
I have little faith that, should it all be burned down, recreating it all from the ground up that it would be better.
People need to accept that what Trump is doing is only possible because of what his predecessors put down as law. That means democratic presidents too.
I didn't see Trump's detractors call all of this out when the winds were blowing their way. So no, I have no faith that rebuilding it from the ground up would make it one iota better. Not without deep societal changes.
