I remember Watsi being posted years ago. I was a recent graduate then and didn’t really have the funds but I do now so I just donated to Philip’s cause! Thank you!
Buy an Arduino and some hobby servos and tinker with them.
But ideally you would have a goal in mind. what do you want your robot to do? (pass butter?) Once you have a goal then you will be able to focus on just what you need to learn to achieve that goal.
I think it comes from the RLHF. If you haven't interacted with LLMs enough to get turned off by it, I think that kind of speech is seen as powerful and confident.
RLHF = Right Left Hand Foot. It's a technique in Bavarian interpretative folk dance where you jump around, artfully hitting the soles of your feet with your hands in order to court women who are busy carrying unbelievable numbers of beer Steins into the mountains.
That's what came to mind when I saw the abbreviation. Then I looked it up:
It is a staple of marketing and journalism writing. And the guys doing the HF on it most probably came from this exact background: marketing and journalism.
I know it almost sounds crass, but you should consider letting an LLM take a crack at transpiling the code. Source to source translations are one of the most widely agreed upon strengths of LLMs.
I can tell you from reading the code in the 90s, no LLM will save you. It’s well written, but it’s not structured like modern programs. IIRC he invented his own trampoline system using goto that will leave you scratching your head for days, just trying to figure out how it works. An LLM might be able to guess, but it def isn’t going to one-shot it and that means you will need to be able to understand it as well.
I do think it is possible with the advent of Claude Agent to transpile the code. First I would refactor the trampoline system to be functional and unit test everything. Then I would use those tests to validate the transpilation. It's something that I would consider doing for a Wall Street Raider 2 to overhaul the engine and deliver massive improvements to the engine itself. I do want to do this to a certain extent to implement automated e2e testing. But I don't mind BASIC at all, prefer it actually, I just want automated testing set up. But a lot of this is beyond the scope of my goals for Early Access release.
Not OP, but I am pretty sure they are using Opencode with a certain antigravity plugin. Not going to link it, since it technically allows breaking TOS. If you‘re not using Opencode yet, I wholeheartedly recommend the switch.
Getting CC to work with other models is quite straightforward -- setting a few env vars, and a thin proxy that rewrites the requests/responses to be in the expected format.
@dang with the launch of open claw I have seen so much more LLM slop comments. I know meta comments like mine aren't usually encouraged, but I think we need to do something about this as a community. Is there anything we can do? (either ban or at least requiring full disclosure for bot comments would be nice).
EDIT: I suspect the current "solution" is to just downvote (which I do!), but I think people who don't chat with LLMs daily might not recognize their telltale signs so I often see them highly upvoted.
Maybe that means people want LLM comments here, but it severely changes the tone and vibe of this site and I would like to at least have the community make that choice consciously rather than just slowly slide into the slop era.
Parent comment has the rhythm of an AI comment. Caught myself not realizing it until you mentioned it. Seems like I am more in tune with LLM slop on twitter, which is usually much worse.
But on second sight it's clear and it also shows the comment as having no stance, and very generic.
@dang I would welcome a small secondary button that one can vote on to community-driven mark a comment as AI, just so we know.
I've been thinking about this, one solution I wonder if to put a really hard problem in the sigh up flow that humans couldn't solve, if it's solve in the signup, it's a bot, not sure how tf to actually basically captchas flip, however I suspect this would only work for so long.
Yes I usually just bite my tongue and downvote, but with the launch of open claw I think the amount of slop has increased dramatically and I think we need to deal with it sooner than later.
Thank you for pointing this out. I didn't catch that the parent comment was ai either and upvoted it. Changed it to a downvote seeing your comment and realizing it the comment did indeed have many AI flags.
How much experience do you have interacting with LLM generated prose? The comment I replied to sets off so many red flags that I would be willing to stake a lot on it being completely LLM generated.
It's not just the em dashes - its the cadence, tone and structure of the whole comment.
Yeah it's really frustrating how often I see kneejerk rebuttals assuming others are solely basing it on presence of em-dashes. That's usually a secondary data point. The obvious tells are more often structure/cadence as you say and by far most importantly: a clear pattern of repeated similar "AI smell" comments in their history that make it 100% obvious.
The theories don't answer all the questions we can ask, namely questions about how gravity behaves at the quantum scale. (These questions pop up when exploring extremely dense regions of space - the very early universe and black holes).
> they (1) don't actually charge enough maintain the variable cost of operations
Why do you expect them to make money? Roads don't make money and no one thinks to complain about that. One of the purposes of government is to make investment in things that have more nebulous returns. Moving more people to public transit makes better cities, healthier and happier citizens, stronger communities, and lets us save money on road infrastructure.
If a system doesn't generate enough revenue to cover the variable costs of operation, then every single new passenger drives the system closer to bankruptcy. The more "successful" the system is -- the more people depend on it -- the more likely it is to fail if anything happens to the underlying funding source, like a regular old local recession. This simple policy decision can create a downward economic spiral when a recession leads to service cuts, which leads to people unable to get to work reliably, which creates more economic pain, which leads to a bigger recession... rinse/repeat. This is why a public transit system should cover variable costs so that a successful system can grow -- and shrink -- sustainably.
When you aren't growing sustainably, you open yourself up to the whims of the business cycle literally destroying your transit system. It's literally happening right now with SF MUNI, where we've had so many funding problems, that they've consolidated bus lines. I use the 38R, and it's become extremely busy. These busses are getting so packed that people don't want to use them, but the point is they can't expand service because each expansion loses them more money, again, because the system doesn't actually cover those variable costs.
The public should be 100% completely covering the fixed capital costs of the system. Ideally, while there is a bit of wiggle room, the ridership should be 100% be covering the variable capital costs. That way the system can expand when it's successful, and contract when it's less popular. Right now in the Bay Area, you have the worst of both worlds, you have an underutilized system with absolutely spiraling costs, simply because there is zero connection between "people actually wanting to use the system" and "where the money comes from."
This gets repeated a lot, but is unpersuasive. How much money should a transit system lose? $20 per trip? $40 per trip? There might be mass transit systems that make sense (e.g buses), but most mass transit in the US is terrible quality and a terrible value. One argument is that it's a jobs program for the disadvantaged, but even there we could find a lot of things more useful than moving around empty seats most of the day.
Roads are used and essential to every single person whether they use a car or not. Every single product you consume was transported over roads.
Drivers are the problem, not roads. Drivers kill, maim, pollute, and disturb the peace in ways AVs do not.
It's not like only that the transit system is losing money? Every trip that's done with a car is also not fully paying for itself. We just keep ignoring how much hidden cost individual car rides have especially considering their use. Obviously heavier road users are even generating more costs, but they might have more use (like in delivering goods to a supermarket).
The claim wasn't they pay for themselves but that they don't generate any income. If we want to look at externalities, we'd also have to figure out how much the Iraq war cost.
"The U.S. generates approximately $17.4 billion in annual toll revenue".
"The total annual cost for road maintenance in the U.S. is in the hundreds of billions of dollars, with estimates showing over $200 billion spent yearly".
reply