Make me a multiplayer browser game with latency compensation and interpolation and send the data over webRTC. Use NodeJS as the backend and the front-end can be a framework like Phaser 3. For a sample game we can use Super Bomberman 2 for SNES. We can have all the exact same rules as the simple battle mode. Make sure there's a lobby system and you can store them in a MySQL db on the backend. Utilize the algorithms on gafferongames.com for handling latency and making the gameplay feel fluid.
Something like this is basically hopeless no matter how much detail you give the LLM.
Build me a multiplayer browser game with NodeJS back-end, a lobby system, MySQL as the database, real-time game-play, synchronized netcode over webRTC so there's as little input lag as possible, utilizing all the algorithms from gafferongames.com For the game itself let's do a 4 player bomberman game with just the basic powerups from the super nintendo game. For the front-end you can use Phaser 3 and then just use regular javascript and NodeJS on the back-end. Make sure there's latency compensation and interpolation.
Yeah well only in the last 10 years did internet companies start employing psychology PHDs to find the best possible ways to exploit people they can. That is basically what the problem is. Short-form content and algorithmic display of what evidently appeals to you the most is literally zombifying people.
I personally don't think technology for the most part is good for society. It makes nature boring and predictable and life less interesting as a whole if this is true, but I don't think we even understand the degree to which technology is just ruining life for the future. We don't have adaptations to deal with anything and adaptations take tens of thousands of years if not way more to occur. The romantic thought is that technology can help us solve the problems that come up as a result of itself, but I'm less optimistic there just because of how things have been going. It seems like human nature and us not being good at understanding large complex systems as a species results in the malignant actors and developments taking root and metastasizing over time.
- global warming
- antibiotic resistance
- environmental contamination
- food quality diminishing
- explosive increase in chronic disease, especially in young people
- extinction of most other species
- fertility problems
- declining birth rates
- poly-pharmacy becoming normal
- now things related to energy consumption with AI and cryptocurrency
- huge decline in social behaviors across the population
Just seems like for every new advancement we're making new chronic issues that are barely incentivized at all for being managed and alleviated
The wheel is technology, metallurgy is technology, irrigation is technology.
Technology is vital to a functioning society.
There's certainly more debate to be had whether various bits of modern technology are net positive or net negative, but even still I personally believe modern technology is mostly neutral to very good for humanity in a vacuum and it is other forces like modern capitalism that bend it toward being harmful.
eg. Social media is very clearly having a net negative impact on modern society, but I don't believe that would still be true if it wasn't driven by algorithms created to maximize ad revenue above all other concerns.
And obviously there is some inherent coupling of modern technology and capitalism that isn't avoidable, but I don't think capitalism on its own is wholly bad, its the slavish cult-like worship of it as the only way to do things that causes it to be so destructive.
Is it actually good at solving complex code or is it just garbage and people are lying about it as usual?
In my experience EXTENSIVELY using claude 3.5 sonnet you basically have to do everything complex or you're just introducing massive amounts of slop code into your code base that while functional is nowhere near good. And for anything actually complex like requires a lot of context to make a decision and has to be useful to multiple different parts, it's just hopelessly bad.
I've played with it the whole day (so take it with a grain of salt). My gut feeling is that it can produce a bigger ... "thing". I am calling it a "thing", because it looks very much as what you want, but the bigger it is - the more the chances of it being subtly (or not) wrong.
I usually ask the models to extend a small parser/tree-walking interpreter with a compiler/VM.
Up until Claude 3.7 the models would propose something lazy and obviously incomplete. 3.7 generated something that looks almost right, mostly works, but is so overcomplicated and broken in such a way, that I rather delete it and write it from scratch. Trying to get the model to fix it resulted in running in circles, spitting out pieces of code that didn't fit the existing ones etc.
Not sure if I prefer the former or the latter tbh.
reply