I wrote a text-based adventure game engine that implemented quite a detailed world model. The results were very engaging indeed, but after a time I realised that while its game world was hugely detailed to the point of individual characters having their own simulated thoughts, feelings and world view, the game was quite shallow in terms of conceptual depth - it very successfully rehashed genre cliches, but nothing about it felt new or fresh.
No, it's still sitting on my machine. It was just a quick-and-dirty shim on top of an LLM service, and not worth maintaining. And it ate tokens at an amazing rate updating every character's point of view.
I see it's been nominated for deletion today. Looking at it, it's been marked for attention for two years, so it's not as if people haven't had time to do anything about it.
The existence of EverybodyWiki demostrates the usefulness of Wikipedia's restrictions. Nothing is stopping you from either putting up your own website or writing on any of the free-access wikis; the reason people treat Wikipedia as a valuable resource is exactly because it won't publish anything indiscriminately. Having a Wikipedia article is not a right.
"They are maniacal about deleting things that I consider noteworthy but others don't" is exactly the point of the notability policy in the first place.
Otherwise Wikipedia would almost instantly fill up with crap.
I see what you mean, but I've written a fair number of wikipedia articles at the behest of professors who are experts in their fields and were annoyed that X person wasn't mentioned. The articles were eventually deleted.
The professors should probably be the ones who decide what is notable in my view. That a small group of wikipedia editors did not appreciate the significance of the persons isn't surpising, they can't be experts about everything.
Because, in 2026, hard drives are really small and can't hold much information, that we need to limit the world's freely and globally available editable encyclopedia, too what a select group of individuals consider noteworthy. No possible editorial bias there!
Hard drives can hold lots of data these days, and text compresses rather well.
You can write about whatever you like and put it on the web, just not in Wikipedia for which, as has been said exhaustively above, there are clearly laid out admissions criteria, not just the whims of a "select group". You are entirely free to contribute to articles-for-deletion process yourself.
Wikipedia does not exist to be a soapbox, self-publishing host or advertising medium, and having a Wikipedia article is not a human right.
The deletion discussion also takes time and consensus, and even then isn't irreversible; you can move the text to draftspace, [1] and try again when you do have proof of notability. Even if the article is deleted before you can respond you can always get a deletion review [0] get your article text back via temporary undeletion and move that to draftspace.
Right. I had an article I spent a bunch of time on last year that didn't pass muster for notability (first time I've had this happen) and shoved into draftspace where I got to edit it and retry it (unsuccessfully) a couple of times.
It was an article that really just slipped between the cracks of the rules, probably like the Odin one. All I did was take a breather for a few weeks, come back, edit it judiciously down to its core and resubmit it. It passed.
If Odin is important enough then one day there will be enough relevant citations to make it notable and it will be approved. Take a breather and come back.
Actually, I see the article has already been moved to draftspace, so nothing has been lost, except visibility, for which you will have to establish notability; you have six months to work on this before it gets deleted, and you can always go back for as many tries as you like.
The sad (or wonderful) fact is that anyone can write a new programming language now; I could for example use Claude create a wrapper on top of an existing languge (for example, a Python-like syntax wrapper for Scheme) in a few hours and start marketing it as a new language. So how can Wikipedia tell toy languages from real ones with actual useful adoption?
It's simple; get coverage in reliable sources,[0] and the article can come back. That really doesn't seem to be too high a bar to cross.
What practice? I'd like to see non-trivial uses of this outside scenarios other than this [0] which even now seems to show slow but steady improvements over time.
As for the Machiavellian scheming aspect, this seems to me to be very much like the operations of some real-world human CEOs.
This happens all the time to me. The model emits thousands of lines of high-quality code, making vast progress very quickly, but on the way does a few very, very stupid things a human being would never have been silly enough to do.
Then it takes hours or days - sometimes weeks - to find and fix the AI-induced problems. If you very, very tightly constrain the AI by using structured processes and unit tests you can work wonders with it, but you do start to wonder to what extent this is better than if you had simply coded it yourself.
Tesla's semi-autonomous FSD falls in the uncanny valley between being good enough to lull you into an inattentive state, but not reliable enough to be better than humans with all possible unforseen situations of the sort that cause real-world crashes and either deal with it safely without driver intervention or at least safely slow to a stop without disaster.
You either capture Level 4 autonomy or you don't, and currently Waymo are leading the way in this, not Tesla, who are Level 3 at best - curious, because with the ever-increasing rate of AI competence and their massive head start, you'd expect them to have cracked Level 4 by now.
The prospect of Level 4+ FSD and being #1 in an ever-expanding market without realistic competition were Tesla's USPs and they are in the process of losing both.
I suspect the market knows this and sees the recent better than expected results as a short-term reprieve, not a renewal of the dream.
> Tesla, who are Level 3 at best - curious, because with the ever-increasing rate of AI competence and their massive head start, you'd expect them to have cracked Level 4 by now.
Perhaps (1) Tesla's technology is incapable of level 4 (no LIDAR), or (2) Tesla is not as good at AI as its competitors, or (3) Tesla really truly is a droid company and the car thing was never a priority, or (4) the CEO is on drugs and should not be allowed to wave chainsaws around.
,_%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B3%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82_2012.JPG){kind=link}