Just vanilla JS unless you've got prior experience because any engine you use is going to have a setup process and bootstrapping code and a learning curve for you that will eat into your time. Across the weekend you might only really have a few hours to dedicate to this project and to hold their attention.
Using the "memory" game as an example, do you want the problems you solve to be how to shuffle the cards in a random order, or do you want to be solving why the cards all positioned weirdly because PhaserJS defines an anchor "origin" point in objects and by default that's x 0.5 / y 0.5 which means 50% width / 50% height aka the center of the object so you need to either set their origin to x 0 / y 0 or factor that into their position by subtracting half their width and height, and their width and height has scaled and unscaled values too width vs displayWidth... and of course if you're using a group for the card's display objects, that class does not support setting the origin.
It seems like most breakthroughs I see are for efficiency? What are the most importsnt breakthroughs from the past two or three years for intelligence?
If you think of it from the point of view of the universal approximation theorem, it's all efficiency optimisation. We know that it works if we do it incredibly inefficiently.
Every architecture improvement is essentially a way to achieve the capability of a single fully-connected hidden layer network n wide. With fewer parameters.
Given these architectures usually still contain fully connected layers, unless they've done something really wrong, they should still be able to do anything if you make the entire thing large enough.
That means a large enough [insert model architecture] will be able to approximate any function to arbitrary precision. As long as the efficiency gains with the architecture are retained as the scale increases they should be able to get there quicker.
Most breakthroughs that are published are for efficiency because most breakthroughs that are published are for open source.'
All the foundation model breakthroughs are hoarded by the labs doing the pretraining. That being said, RL reasoning training is the obvious and largest breakthrough for intelligence in recent years.
With all the floating around of AI researchers though, I kind of wonder how "secret" all these secrets are. I'm sure they have internal siloing, but even still, big players seem to regularly defect to other labs. On top of this, all the labs seem to be pretty neck and neck, with no one clearly pulling ahead across the board.
> What are the most importsnt breakthroughs from the past two or three years for intelligence?
The most important one in that timeframe was clearly reasoning/RLVR (reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards), which was pioneered by OpenAI's Q* aka Strawberry aka o1.
I’m confused why the hype and the investment got so high. And why everyone treats it like a race. Why can’t we gradually develop it like dna sequencing.
To be fair, DNA sequencing was very hyped up (although not nearly as much as AI). The HGP finished two years ahead of schedule, which is sort of unheard of for something in it's domain, and was mainly a result of massive public interest about personalized medicine and the like. I will admit that a ton of foundational DNA sequencing stuff evolved over decades, but the massive leap forward in the early 2000s is comparable to the LLM hype now.
I assumed it was obvious. Being first is all that matters. Investors don't want to invest in second place. Obviously, first is achieving AGI and not some GPT bot. That's why so many people keep saying AGI is in _____ weeks away with some even being preposterous stating AGI might have already happened. They need to keep attracting investors. Same as Musk constantly saying FSD is ____ weeks away.
Technically yes, but practically no. Air is 78% nitrogen. Nitrogen is 3.3% lighter than air. Helium is 86.2% lighter than air. Hydrogen is 93% lighter than air.
A spherical balloon 20cm in radius is displacing 41g of air. Even ignoring compression (which I don’t know enough to quantify the effects of, except that it will make the numbers more unfavourable), nitrogen’s 3.3%-lighter gives you a budget of only 1.35g for the balloon. I believe balloons hare heavier than this, so the balloon will still sink (a little more slowly than an air-filled one, but I’m not sure how noticeable the difference will be).
> which I don’t know enough to quantify the effects of
You probably do, actually! People constantly underestimate the grand utility of their basic education.
At near-atmospheric pressure and typical ambient temperatures, the ideal gas equation (PV=nRT) from introductory physics works very well and indicates that a 3% overpressure would make gases 3% more dense (linear direct proportionality). At some threshold of high pressures/ low temperatures, you'd want to switch your equation of state (EOS) from ideal gas law to something else. Peng-Robinson would be a good choice for a non-polar gas like Nitrogen, if its >10-50 atm pressure and/or < -50C temperature.
At 20 degC, 1.00atm to 3kPa gauge pressure, ideal gas law predicts nitrogen would increase in density by 2.9608%. Whereas Peng-Robinson predicts it would increase in density by ever-so-slightly more, 2.9623%. This is truly negligible, so better to use the simples EOS for explainability (which would be the ideal gas law).
I feel like people really need to learn basic physics.
The gas inside a standard party balloon is generally compressed 3% to inflate the balloon. This wipes out even the theoretical buoyancy of nitrogen. And trust me, there was never any practical buoyancy to begin with. You’d need a ridiculously large balloon in a room with impossibly still air and impossibly null thermal gradients to even measure the buoyancy of nitrogen vs air. The buoyancy of nitrogen vs air would never be perceptible to human senses in any real-world setting.
It would be the same as just filling the balloon with air.
> I feel like people really need to learn basic physics.
I'm 20+ years out of college and I asked a question specifically because I was unsure. Give me a break. I'm sorry if "party balloon buoyancy physics" wasn't the part of my college classes that stuck with me.
reply