Ultimately, most people don't have ideas for the kinds of personalized entertainment they want, and they don't want to be in charge of content production (even if you have an LLM do most of the work). I don't doubt that there are niches for it, especially stuff like porn, and I'm sure that pros (game studios, film studios) will leverage AI more and more, but I suspect that most of us will just want to sit on the couch, watch Spiderman XVIII, and then be able to talk about that shared Spiderman XVIII experience with all our friends.

The fans were real heart broken about this but I think you're right on where this is going. We're not going to be seeing the dominance of centrally produced content like this for much longer, like sure, I think there will be big blockbusters will stick around, but I think the day is coming where media becomes a choose your own adventure sort of scenario.

It'll be interesting to see where this scales to. there will definitely be some amazing solo projects but we'll also see the like 4 player co-op version of productions and then the larger mine-craft server 'Minas Tirith' scale ambitious projects that involve a few dozen people. And of course passive consumers will remain a thing, or people who just provide some suggestions or nudges for what they'd like to see others make.

But I don't think it'll be dominated by big companies like Disney, Netflix, Amazon or Paramount.

I'm sure a lot of them will suck but it'll be neat to see the inevitable Seinfield - Star Trek Voyager cross over episodes.

Elaine and B'Elanna Torres feud after a transporter accident leaves the crew stranded the delta quadrant. Jerry attempts to date 7of9 but is rebuffed as she finds Kramer's quirky bluntness more relatable. George panics after someone compares him to Neelix.

On top of that, a decent chunk of the joy of entertainment is the social aspect.

Or maybe over these 8 months agents improved a lot? You know, few years ago many AI experts predicted that things we are routinely doing now with AI are decades away. I mean how can you look at this post and not be impressed? It's insane what AI is currently capable of.

We already have sneaker designs and the equipment to manufacture them. Whatever it spits out is going to be, at best, a mediocre clone of something that already exists. What exactly is the point?

Asking AI to design real world objects doesn't work very well because all of its tests involve proxies and thus miss things that are glaringly obvious when the object is actually built.

I think LLMs will be excellent glue of "find the right function/button and run/push it" but design without constraints and they just explode immediately

Why do you say this? I have some experience of manufacturing processes and am not seeing where AI would be useful other than to drive the robots which we can already do quite well without AI (see all the dark/lights-out factories that already exist).

Where do you see it being useful? An example would be nice.

Why would anyone still use off-the-shelf software when they can have a system that has access to all data, can transform it into any form, and can export it in any format?

After years of thinking that I needed to develop a decent movie management system for my own films or a columnar browser for large CSV files, Claude and Qwen each delivered exactly what I needed in just a day.

Have they? Most of the world production is tied down to expensive factories and machines. Yes, we have more products, but that the result of the global trade, which is a very complex system.

> Produce it cheaply and if it breaks throws it away and reproduce it.

I don't know why everyone would ever wants this. It's been parroted since forever, but the true usefulness of software is to be able to build it once and runs it indefinitely. If some edge case occurs, I fix it. Which is way cheaper than rebuilding the whole thing. The goal is to have something like OpenBSD's ed[0] or dmesg[1], which you only touch every few years or so

[0] https://github.com/openbsd/src/commits/master/bin/ed

[1] https://github.com/openbsd/src/commits/master/sbin/dmesg/dme...

On the one hand yes, almost every task I work at now is one off one of scripts I throw away.

The question is - where does the software the spec or the “code”.

A really complex game will probably always be token heavy. At least for the next few years code is still not free.

But certain software is just iterative by design. If we mean we regenerate all the for loops of a game from scratch, sure but I think “code” Is really more spec then implementation, and we’ll want to continue building things through iteration.

And even on the for loop point - Do you really want to spend millions of tokens rewriting a game every time you need to make balance changes?

"Draw an animation of this long ass scene from a movie, and only call me when everything works e2e" can be.

I guess the next question is if they can be made fun without too much additional work with a human guiding the AI.

I guess this is the average story and, similarly, the average game is boring and predictable

If I see one more “one shot MMO” where you just walk around and do absolutey nothing or another menu slop idle battler or rogulike deck builder I’m going to go Postal in Minecraft.

However I do agree that the results are much worse when you try to use them. They look great in screenshots and video clips which makes them perfect for content farmers.

All of the LLM generated games I’ve played have been really bad to play, though. I even tried my hand at a simple game, thinking I could iterate on it with prompts to fix some rough edges. After the initial productivity burst every change turned into a slog of tokens with one thing changing and something else breaking it. I would try to use my remaining weekly token budget across Anthropic and OpenAI to refine it at the end of every week but after a couple weeks it felt like I wouldn’t be getting anywhere without scrapping it and going back to having the LLM build it one step at a time with my careful instruction.

Which, in retrospect, is the only way I can get usable output of an LLM for anything complicated, so it’s not surprising. It’s a fun reality check project though.

These one-shot products aren't games. They're barely even demos. I don't even know what to call them. For a mature framework like Phaser to sell-out like this and create a vibecoded platform for vibecoded games is shocking.

Used to be if a game looked that good it probably had time spent on the game part too.

This weekend I've been converting a game from three.js to ogl.js in order to see if I can optimise the time-to-interactive loading time. I took the three.js driven page weight from about 600KB (500KB being three.js) to about 50KB, and reduced the loading time from multiple seconds on a 4G mobile connection to around 0.5s.

This has mostly been a combination of Opus 5 and Sonnet 5 in Claude Code. It very clearly has a good grasp of WebGl, and of what impacts page loading times and rendering speed. It was able to drive Claude Code's integrated browser to measure the impact of changes, and as I spiked out a test of ogl.js it could test the differences changes made.

It's not the best game (https://tinyslots.ooer.com) but that's on me. As an exercise in building 3D in a browser, and in page speed optimization, with Claude models I am really impressed.

Bilbo's house is actually described in The Hobbit and the exterior isn't really described at all in Fellowship. The prologue of Fellowship (Concerning Hobbits) mentions hobbits like round doors and windows and the fact some hobbit homes are underground, but the turf-dome design here is not mentioned. It actually mentions hobbit homes typically have bulging walls, so unless you've read the The Hobbit, you might not picture this entirely-underground style.

In The Hobbit, his home is described as a (nice) hole in "The Hill" with a perfectly round front door and round windows, which could imply the design here.

Testing, assessing, tasting...

We also do it when we build other things - this is just a different scale.

A good new benchmark should have awful performance to start and there should be a lot of headroom for improvement. This benchmark is also intentionally difficult and requires the LLM to develop the animation through spatial reasoning and first principals rather than existing video generation pipelines. Similar to how SVG generation was out of distribution for most models a year ago.

Not difficult to see why the employees of AI firms are thrilled with it though, eh?

I like the analogy.

I guess this is why we got this before cars sold without steering wheels: literal guardrails on the literal roads are somewhat more expensive, especially for the people who keep bouncing off them on the way to their destination.

Also, where the guardrails are absent: oh look, felonies. https://www.google.com/search?q=ai+hacks+company&tbm=nws

I like where Karpathy is going; I had the same thoughts about LLM generated slop scenery. I just want some variety of scenery for the goblins to get massacred in in whatever fantasy slop game I play.

What I find funny is that approximate to computer graphics are video games. When I ask AI about a decision available to me in a video game AI completely fails, OFTEN. I assume all the forums and changes made to a game over time might be quite confusing for AI. But I've also seen it completely make up characters and decisions and weapons and so on about some very clearly defined games and paths. It's an interesting dynamic.