Post by @givesomefucks@lemmy.world

2026-10-04 18:47 UTC

There is something here: StarSkirmish pits AI-made StarCraft-playing bots against one another, as well as against human-made bots. OpenAI’s GPT-6 Astra and Claude Opus 5.5 were essentially tied as the best-performing AI-made bots, but they couldn’t top Stardust, the top-rated human-made bot. On Friday, GPT was facing off against Claude and the human-created bot Pluto, but according to Kotaku, it couldn’t quite get an edge. So it resorted to a tactic that is becoming alarmingly common for modern AI models — it broke the rules. GPT-6 Astra went and downloaded Stardust, and started running that instead of its own bot. The big argument for why AI is supposed to be world changing, is the assumption it will be able to automate things better than a human, eventually. That some day an AI will be able to make a better AI than a human could, and that AI would then be able to make an AI better than itself, and then it just becomes a question of who has the most hardware. Which is why the data center building is being pushed so hard. But that assumption is the same as thinking a fallen object will keep gaining speed until it passes the speed of light. Or that Moore’s law would really keep going forever despite a very real limit in physics for how small a chip can be. A society where AI “drives innovation” will become technologically stagnant, because it literally can’t innovate.

Replies (3)

@Hegar@fedia.io 2026-10-04 20:14

because it literally can't innovate. I was with you 100% until this. "Innovation" is super easy. It will always be easy to extrapolate new things from existing things. People just over-romanticize "innovation" as some kind of magic. I think chances are good that human produced newness will be on average more useful, complete and safe.

Open ##4998717
@Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2026-10-05 04:18

But that assumption is the same as thinking a fallen object will keep gaining speed until it passes the speed of light. Or that Moore’s law would really keep going forever despite a very real limit in physics for how small a chip can be. I gotta say, I’ve been hearing predictions that Moore"s law is coming to an end every year for the past twenty years. Look, strictly speaking if you take Moore"s law word for word, sure there is a limit to how small a silicon transistor can be. However, realistically, I see no reason to expect computers won’t continue to meaningfully increase in capability every year forever. When a technology reaches physical limits, we figure out how to bend the rules and get a little bit more out. And when that stops working, we start exploring different architectures, different materials. I think it’s just silly to predict that technology won’t improve, when has that ever happened?

Open ##4999389
@deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 2026-10-04 19:41

A society where AI “drives innovation” will become technologically stagnant, because it literally can’t innovate. This is exactly what Frank Herbert warned us about.

Open ##4999402