Wikipedia has a list of active domains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna%27s_Archive

Is something like a 3D game engine even hard to find source code for? There's gotta lots of examples/implementations scattered around.

I will say I have no experience in the ad space, but surely the SEO/ad companies will figure out how to game LLMs to make their sites more likely to be picked up by it, no? Or OpenAI would just directly sell ads themselves.

Yes - we're in what I like to call the Socialist Phase of AI (user acquisition). We were once in this phase with Google. Eventually we'll move into the as-yet-unnamed-by-me phase that Google (and search in General, also the internet) have been in for quite some time, where they try and squeeze out all the money that they put in during the Socialist Phase.

The classic pairing is explore/exploit - where you allocate resources towards serendipity in the former, and lock down into only doing the profitable thing in the second.

I like to call this the candyvan phase.

Value creation phase vs extraction phase.

I prefer not, because technically this socialist phase is part of capitalism currently.

I'm curious what caching architecture a docs site needs, it can't be more complicated than a standard fare CDN?

Here's the other post:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46276313

Search indexing, etc.

Didn't MIT also publish a similar report saying most AI implementations don't add any value, or something similar?

I have never heard of this. It looks like a crypto thing. Can they really hold a candle to Facepunch?

They were pretty big at one point, though they've been losing traction. Their investors seem to have fairly deep pockets (hundreds of millions). Their software (game maker and client) are really well-developed and excellent. The crypto means you can trade any game assets freely, which is great, but also traditionally made it hard for new players who aren't into crypto (they just added credit cards).

Probably has the same resources as Facepunch, but nowhere near the following or players.

For me, it could be:

> it's not better. it's different

> automation isn't lazy. it's sustainable

> it's not about gatekeeping. it's about making debugging possible

This is everywhere in the article.

Many do, especially at higher resolutions.

I don't think there is any reason a game _needs_ more. I don't think there is any gameplay experience that couldn't be enjoyably delivered on this hardware. And it's a massive disappointment that minimum requirements bloat has been out of control lately.

With how PC part prices have exploded after AI data center buying, I think we will see developers suddenly discover that you don't actually need half these specs to run games.

I doubt the rest of the system will be able to do these high resolution versions. It's basically a console, not a gamer PC.

Especially if you do stuff like "AI" upscaling, frame generation, and raytracing.

What many games need to do more is to better optimize. And I’m talking about graphics, not time to market.

What

I genuinely don't understand the consistent rhetoric on this site of:

> new AI feature/model comes out

> "it's going to replace people in this field! they better start looking for a new job!!!"

why is this a good thing?

It’s not a good thing, but it’s definitely a thing. Most of us here on HN are going to be affected by this.

How many more years do you think you'll need to keep saying this before it's actually true?

New grads are already having a tough time. My own expectation is that every recession or downturn from here on out, there will be the typical rounds of layoffs but without the typical increase in hiring afterwards. Maybe no “we replaced you with AI” moment, more of a “no new hiring” tendency.

Who said it was a good thing?