This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Navier-Stokes Millenium Problem Solved by GPT
OpenAI says they solved the Navier-Stokes Millenium Prize problem with an internal model that is more powerful than GPT6, so a GPT 7 candidate or something close. OpenAI has been on fire lately really casting a shadow on Anthropic. First the hugging face incident, now the first to crack the Millenium prize problems.
As for the solution to the problem, they are claiming that smoothness is disproved and that the equations do break down.
They say that the equation can develop a singularity, which apparently means it is not a perfect model.
This is very exciting to me as I believe it to be the first scientific result of an AI model. Previous results have been basically irrelevant to the sciences. However, this result is of course still completely symbolic in nature, which is not surprising because LLMs are not embodied enough to collect data and analyze it autonomously.
While they are generating amazing PR recently, I will say GPT-6 is somewhat disappointing for coding. It is not the same leap that 5.5 to 5.6 sol was. It would appear that the models are getting better at running very long context chains while efficiency improvements and refinements in lower level tasks are lacking. Still, it's great work from OpenAI and it's plausible to me that if there's no singularity in general by 2030, there will be for mathematicians. They will no longer be meaningful for producing math, rather they will only be humans who understand it.
At this point the AI doubters should be eating a double serving of Crow. And the best thing about it all is how this is the worst AI will ever be.
In other news, OpenAI released GPT Image 2.5 today as well, representing yet another significant advance in AI generated images. I'd feel bad for the human artists etc., except the've been dead for over a year at this point and we might as well have their eventual replacement AI be as good as possible.
Just tried it and it's quite underwhelming. All of the artifacting from gpt-image-2 is still there making it unusable for any real usage
More options
Context Copy link
What does “dead” mean? Lots of artists still employed at video game and animation studios, lots of artists still taking commissions on patreon and the like, etc.
I’m not trying to be snarky here, but as the claims start getting more insistent and extravagant — “AGI is here”, “AGI has actually been here for a while already”, “X profession is dead” — it’s only fair that those claims start being supported with significant real world impact.
Re: video games, I think you're probably going to see a mass die-off in the next year or two. I predict with strong confidence that within the next year, Steam will see an order of magnitude increase in the number of games released. I would be very surprised if the current industry business model survives the flood.
Making predictions is always scary, as it should be, but if I'm wrong on this one by all means quote back at me. I'm currently running AI five or six hours a night, trying to make hay while the sun shines; we'll see how it goes.
!RemindMe one year.
I don’t think the number of new games released on Steam is going to increase that much, because even saying “ChatGPT, whip me up a sick new game” is already too much effort for most people. Think about how easy and accessible it is to write a short story (even without AI!), and then think about how few people ever do.
There is no reserve army of dormant creatives waiting for their potential to be unlocked by new advances in tooling. Most people who are ever going to publish anything are already doing it. (Admittedly, automated content farms make this more complicated and might skew the statistics.)
Yes, most people are not creative, but they don't have to be; if there is some non-negligible fraction of people who have a good idea for a game but are unable to code or draw, then we are going to see an explosion of content as soon as AI lets them overcome their barriers.
I certainly noticed a dramatic increase in my personal area of niche interest (netorase visual novels) with the advent of AI; great games that would have previously never been made, such as Stains of Blue and Blurring the Walls (NSFW), suddenly became viable.
More options
Context Copy link
I am not very good at code. I have a project I've been working on for a couple weeks or months at a time every year or so; I really wanted to make this game, but going head down on it has always been exhausting, I end up burning two weeks or so tackling some stupid code problem, and then drop the project again when I just can't handle trying to tackle the next obstacle.
I've made more progress in the last two weeks than I have since I started the project, by a wide margin. There are no significant obstacles in sight. Things that would have been completely impractical pipe-dreams are reduced to easy lifts of an evening or so. I'm not sure it will stay like this, perhaps I'll run up against some more significant wall that AI can't handle, but where I'm at now is that I was probably never going to ship this game, and now it certainly looks like I am.
I am one of the dormant creatives you're claiming doesn't exist. I can directly observe the difference in effort. I might be wrong, but I would be very, very surprised.
I’m not an AI denier, I know very well what it can accomplish with code and that it’s a huge productivity multiplier. You don’t have to remind me.
IIRC you’re employed as a professional artist and have done plenty of creative projects on the side throughout your life, so you’re definitely not someone who would go in the “dude who’s just sitting around waiting for his potential to be unlocked by AI” bucket.
Will someone make a game with AI that they wouldn’t have made without it? Yes. Is it going to be so many people that it destroys the market? No. (If I’m wrong, it will be because of industrial-scale automated content farms, people who pump out AI games as their entire business model.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's honestly shocking to the extent to which I have found this to be true. I don't know why that is yet: maybe some sort of [rational insofar the mind is evaluating the situation accurately] depression?
I think it's kind of like cooking your own food; even if technically you could do it yourself and it's gotten much easier to do so in the last 70 years, a lot of the "luxury" of eating out is having someone else do it for you, and being able to eat something out of distribution from what you'd normally eat.
I find that vibe-coding games sounds interesting in theory, but in practice it appeals much more to "people who want to make games" than "people who want to play games"; playing your own game feels kind of boring once you've put your intellectual efforts into making it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link