copygirl

The idea is that “roguelike” = a game like Rogue, which according to some people, requires checking most if not all of the boxes including ASCII, proc-gen, perma-death, turn-based, … while the term “rougelite” is less strict. But I think we’re past the point of that distinction being adopted into mainstream.

ECS already makes it a hundred times easier for me to conceptualize game mechanics, modify and extend them. Giving AI the ability the ability to create data separate from systems that use them will make it much easier for it to build a game. I don’t believe for a second it will be able to write functioning object-oriented game code for example. It will likely be best if it avoided coding via a text-based language altogether, and use visual scripting or another system based on chaining logic blocks together. But that still counts as the “system” part of ECS.

There is a possibility something like this will be possible in the future, but it’s not going to be an achievement of AI, it’s largely going to be the achievement of regular developers creating a general-purpose game engine that can be used to put together a game block by block, which can be utilized by both human game designers and AI. (Likely to better effect by the former.) I can imagine Entity Component Systems will play a big part of that.

One of the biggest blockers for AI making games is going to be testing it to select for better performance. With text it’s relatively easy to see if some text an AI produced is plausible. Images are also plentiful, but that’s a lot more subjective. With both of these it would also not take a massive amount of time to add a human element. It’s quick to check if a paragraph or image looks like it is a good response to the input promt. A game, however? How long do you need to play it to see if it’s fun? At best, perhaps, you can write an AI to control a bot character to see if it’s technically playable.

I don’t want to even think about the electricity that wlll be wasted training such models.

Indeed, it’s a neat way to visualize gravity, but that’s it. It lacks any sort of explanation of why masses appear to be pulled towards one another. (I will point to the other person in this thread saying it “explains gravity with gravity”.) This is why I think the metaphor you mentioned detracts from the original video.

I think that explains the “how” more than the “why”.

Could you please provide some sources for that? I’d like to know more.

First of all though, there is no such thing as a “hostile fork”. Being able to fork a project, for any reason, is the entire point of open source. And to be fair, not wanting to continue working for a for-profit company for free is a very good reason.

And yeah, when you suddenly turn a FOSS project that’s been developed with the help of a bunch of contributors, into a for-profit company, without making a big fuss about it beforehand and allow the contributors and community to weigh in, then yeah, that’s a hostile takeover of sorts, at least in my opinion. Developers gotta make money, but they could’ve done that by creating a new brand instead of taking over that of a previously completely FOSS project. Forgejo is preventing that exact thing from happening by joining Codeberg (a non-profit).

There’s been a hostile takeover at Gitea and it’s now run / owned by a for-profit company. The developers forked the project under the name Forgejo and are continuing the work under a non-profit. See also: Their introduction post and a page comparing the two projects. Feel free to look up more, since I haven’t familiarized myself with the incident all that much myself. Either way though, maybe consider using Forgejo instead of Gitea.

What I’m saying is that Microsoft is, in fact, being hostile by limiting OSS builds such as Codium in the ways I’ve mentioned above. I guess that’s how they try to get people to keep using their proprietary build instead.

except for visual studio code

But also:

• Telemetry everywhere
• Not permitted to use the official marketplace with OSS builds
• Not able to use certain extensions (like C# debugger) with OSS builds

Though I’ve been very happy about the direction .NET and C# have been going, especially the licensing.

Not to be pedantic but I think the headline is fine.

If you simulated a fire in a building for training purposes and upon activating the fire alarm, it got broadcast to emergency services when it shouldn’t, you did accidentally broadcast the fire alarm, simulated or not.

The “accidentally” already implies it was done in error, suggesting it was not an emergency. On the other hand, if it was a real emergency, and just wasn’t meant to be publicly broadcasted, I feel like the headline would’ve looked different.