[inigyou]

Wait so someone asked for something you made with AI that wasn't slop, and then you linked to something you knew was slop, and you said "I think this counts as something that isn't mere slop" and then when called out on it you admit you knew it was slop the whole time?

This is a frequent pattern among AI users. What causes it?

[fzeroracer]

I noticed this as well. A few days ago I was linked a game engine here when I similarly asked for proof and when I went to the repo and started reading it, the best way to describe it was keyword jargon soup and it seems to be the same for a lot of projects in this thread.

I think it's because it makes them seem...smarter? More technical? But they can't describe who it's for or what the actual design is without consulting an AI.

[kittoes]

The README is, the project absolutely isn't and you don't have to take my word for it. I figure I'm speaking to a technically advanced audience who is perfectly capable of pulling down the repository if they're at all curious. I also provided a non-slop link elsewhere in the thread if that's more your bag. If not, oh well...

[inigyou]

The project appears to also be slop.

[dandellion]

Why would anyone pull it? When I want slop I just ask the AI to generate some exactly the way I like it.

[kittoes]

I get the skepticism, I really do, but my hope is that your own AI(s) confirm exactly what I'm claiming within these comments. Like I've told others, there's no need to take my word for it... the entire point of the project is that anyone can execute/prove the same things I claim using their own hardware via a Doom-replay type format. If I was one of those influencer types, then I would've simply led with "it's an agentic first engine!!! how amazeballz is this?!" or some other nonsense. On the extremely off chance that I'm actually working on some sort of ridiculous ARG, consider this post a canonical part of it.

[lovich]

> I get the skepticism, I really do, but my hope is that your own AI(s) confirm exactly what I'm claiming within these comments

Given that you stated your readme is for bots, given that you expect our own AI to interpret it based on your evidence, how do I, as a human, go about evaluating this project without just writing it off as slop from the linked evidence?

What is the starting off point for a human, not an AI agent, to evaluate this?

And to be clear if the answer is to just download arbitrary code onto my machine and run it, that’s not good enough given the increase in attacks from AI projects and fake recruiters telling you to just run it bro. I’ve already had to pass on multiple interviews despite being unemployed because the human/ai on the other side demanded root access or for me to run arbitrary code onto my machine as part of their process.

[kittoes]

Frankly, there's no "good" starting off point for a human right now, and that's why I'm not at all comfortable claiming this has actually shipped. It's very much a WIP where only a select few namespaces have actually had a chance to settle.

That said, the maths library might just be the best thing to start with because it's mostly stable, relatively simple, and virtually every other part of the project depends on it in some way. If graphics are more your jam then maybe check out the SDF VM project and associated documents. All rendering goes through a single instruction set that is implemented via a shader pipeline that allows arbitrary scenes to be defined without shader recompilation. The project is essentially multiple compilers wearing a trench coat so there's a little bit of something for everyone... like two fully implemented emulators of the brick variety, including peripherals.

If you're adventurous and want to have your favorite LLM give the project a review in a sandbox then I think that'd be neat! Especially considering that they would have absolutely no problem driving everything themselves through STDIN. Though I totally understand if that's not something you're keen on doing considering the state of things today. Either way, cheers!