The LLM basically just produces some code that either runs and produces good results or it doesn't. If it produces garbage, that is the end of the line for that branch.
> His track record since “the big short” has been horrific.
You would expect that with low probability, highly leveraged bets, which shorts largely are. You are wrong most of the time and then make a giant pile of money when you are right. People definitely should understand that strategy though and not just follow him blindly into investments without the expectation that you will probably lose your money almost every time.
You can make a lot of money on options even if the price doesn't collapse completely. Options dramatically amplify movements of the underlying price. Even if the market swoons a little bit, he can cash out for a big profit, as long as it happens before his positions expire, even if it doesn't hit his strike price.
> For comparison we have contemporaneous inscriptions and epigraphs attesting the existence of alexander the great but the earliest surviving accounts of his actions are from 200-300 years later.
This is true, but those surviving accounts quote or paraphrase contemporaneous accounts from his generals like Ptolemy and others that have since been lost.
I recall doing this on my BBC micro with 5.25" disks. In fact, some disks were deliberately designed for this, and had a 'notch' (which you would cover with some tape to make read-only) on both the left and right, so you could set the read-only state for each side individually.
The version of Elite that I played had the standard version on one side, and a version for the "BBC Master" (which had an extra 64KiB RAM) which had more colours than the standard version, on the other.
This is making me wonder if it is actually possible to capture everything that is in blue prince in a text based game, and I think the answer is no, because the affordances are different. I am trying to explain this without spoiling too much, but beyond the original stated goal of the game, there is an entire _second game_ layered on top of it, which is largely about _noticing things_, and I don't think there is a way to really capture that with pure text that evokes the same feeling of discovery. Text by it's very nature draws attention to itself, while a graphical representation allows a surplus of information that allows interesting things to hide within uninteresting things. I think the core drafting mechanics work fine as text but that is like 10% of the game.
You are in the Billiards Room. It's sparingly decorated, almost unfinished in its rusticness - the walls are plain, dark wooden panelling, the floor's the same. There is a billiards table here, with a few balls set out upon it. There's a bar in one corner, populated with every kind of liquor you've ever heard of, and a lot more that you haven't. The western wall has a boarded-up window. The east has a couple of framed prints next to the door. But really what draws your eyes here is the dart board, mounted on the wall of this quiet little man-cave. And what draws your nose is the faint scent of some very expensive cigar smoke, trodden into the boards of this floor by a thousand thousand footsteps your great-uncle made while circling the green field of the table with an endless succession of Men of Power.
> smell
Very expensive cigar smoke. Curiously like oranges.
> examine bar
It's a little nook in the corner of the room. Someone seems to have left a few coins there! You scoop them up and relish the jingle a few coins make in your pocket. It's scattered with the usual: a few empty glasses, a lot of bottles, three three model cars, a treatise upon the theory of panspermia written by your aunt, a statue of an elephant, and a white chess piece.
[ +5 coins! ]
> drink
Your mother made you very solemnly swear on your cherished Swim Bird plushie to not break into Great-Uncle Herbert's stash until you were married.
> drink
Your mother made you very solemnly swear on your cherished Swim Bird plushie to not break into Great-Uncle Herbert's stash until you were married. No force in the universe could compel you to break this oath.
> x chess
It's nestled among the bottles, as if trying to blend in with them. You wonder what a drink themed around a white pawn would taste like. Probably oranges. Grunkle Herbert always smelt a little like oranges, under those cigars.
> x elephant
Red jasper, the size of your fist.
> play pool
You pick up a cue and poke the balls around the baize. For a moment it's as if you're a little older, pitting your skills against Grunkle Herbert in an endless series of cozy lectures on the history of Fenn Aires, and how he made deals between its biggest players. For a moment it's as if you're him, aimlessly knocking balls around the table as he passes on his knowledge to the next generation of power. But ultimately it's just you, alone in his massive mansion, trying to piece the massive puzzle of his life back together, and wondering why you always smell oranges when you think of him.
And ultimately it was darts that he really played to win, not billiards.
> x prints
Two sparse line drawings: a raven, and a writing-desk.
> play darts
[ a dart-themed math puzzle ensues ]
----
Which parts are important? Which parts are just there to distract you? Is it important to a second-layer puzzle that this room's memories smell like oranges? Is it meaningful that there's a chess piece there? Is it meaningful that you're pretty sure this room's memories smelled like cherries yesterday?
Ah so, this is pretty possible, as it's a flavor of text adventure puzzle that usually shows up every year or two for Mystery Hunt. I agree that visually allows this to a greater degree, but it's exceedingly doable to have such a layered game just in text.
> I have to disagree here. When you are tasked with dividing 2 big numbers you most certainly don't "autocomplete" (with the sense of finding the most probable next tokens, which is what an LLM does), rather you go through set of steps you have learned.
Why do you think that this is the part that requires intelligence, rather than a more intuitive process? Because they have had machines that can do this mechanically for well over a hundred years.
There is a whole category of critiques of AI of this type: "Humans don't think this way, they mechanically follow an algorithm/logic", but computers have been able to mechanically follow algorithms and perform logic from the beginning! That isn't thinking!
You are stating a lot of things as fact that aren't really supported. We don't know this is a bubble, we don't know that there will be a transformer implosion, whatever that means, we don't know that OpenAI would ground zero if this is a bubble and it pops, etc..
No one ever knows before these things happen. These predictions are obviously always conjecture, they can’t be stated as fact, ever— at best you can give some supporting evidence often based on similar prior art
reply