Patrick McKenzie, aka patio11, used a LLM to generate and run a DnD campaign for a gaming convention/conference, He discusses the process and results as part of this podcast on the con.

https://www.complexsystemspodcast.com/episodes/narrative-mas...

I'm going to listen to this, but as a D&D enjoyer - both as a DM and a player - the idea of using an LLM for D&D feels so gross to me.

Just based on skimming the transcript, it sounds like it wasn't a D&D campagin, it was actually a roguelike CRPG that he vibecoded in Claude Code.

Still, he mentions some gross things, like how he "got bullied into" adding a game mechanic he didn't want by the LLM. It kept adding it, without being asked, and he finally just got tired of taking it back out again. The mechanic in question was a leveling system, so I imagine the LLM kept adding it because that's such a standard-issue element of dungeon crawler games. Which speaks to my main source of pessimism about AI in games: LLMs have a tendency to want to do standard, middle-of-the-road things, and will tend to fight you every step of the way when you try to involve them in an attempt to do something new and different.

But I imagine you'd run into a similar thing with D&D campaigns. Which, if true, raises the question: why would I need an LLM to generate Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms style quests when back issues of Dungeon magazine already give me more of that kind of material than I could reasonably get through in a lifetime, and probably in a much more polished form?

Not exactly. Apple released 2 press releases today, the article you link to is about the laptops, this discussion is about the CPUs.

The HN dupe algebra goes by something like 'is the discussion going to be more or less the same'.

Unfortunately, in many organizations, "the library we use doesn't follow this recommendation" is a valid compelling reason. Which means that in practice "SHOULD" effectively means "WOULD BE NICE IF".

Huh, for me the very first non-ad result for googleing RFC English is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments, which is the correct citation.

For me it was to do with Rugby Football.

There's no reason Intel had to give the same price they would have given Apple to another customer.

Intel often cuts prices to favored customers to win business, for example they did so for the original Xbox CPU, to prevent an AMD from being used.

There's no reason for other customers to strangle Intel or move (again) to TI OMAP platform when they find that Apple as a new entrant in their market got favorable terms from one of their suppliers...

In 2006, Intel has just won back Palm from TI and were under incredible pressure from Qualcomm who had their MSM7200 SoC in the pipeline (which integrated both CPU and Modem in a single low-power package).

> Intel often cuts prices to favored customers to win business, for example they did so for the original Xbox CPU, to prevent an AMD from being used.

There's "cutting prices" and then there's selling BELOW COST, without a volume-commitment from the customer for long-term break-even...

> There's "cutting prices" and then there's selling BELOW COST,

Otellini himself later claimed that they miscalculated the cost regardless of volume.

Second reason it didn't take off faster was that iPhone was typically a carrier exclusive, and in most markets, the iPhone carrier was typically one of the smaller carriers. So iPhone wasn't available to most mobile phone users in a given market, unless they went to the trouble of switching carriers.

Plus the App Store was a massive driver of demand, but wasn’t there until year 2 and the release of the 3G.

FWIW the linked article is reporting on a 5 minute YouTube video montage of Jonathan Blow interview snippets. Might be worth it to watch/listen to the video directly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KR5i98aCy0

I remember seeing a Vector Graphics computer at a computer store around 1978, when I was shopping for my first computer. I was excited by the name Vector Graphics, only to be disappointed to learn that it was a meaningless name, and their computers had nothing to do with vectors or graphics. I vaguely remember that it was a generic business machine (maybe with a 16 bit version?) with nothing to recommend it to a hobbyist over the competition.

In that era Apple had an enormous lead in graphics, software, and peripheral cards.

Yeah, the small business system integrator business was really different back then. Especially before Visicalc (1979), which opened a lot of doors for Apple. A profile of that segment of the pre-IBM-PC industry would be fascinating and would put Vector in the right context.

To be fair, CP/M machines had much better software tooling available than the hobbyist 6502 computers for a long time - compare MBASIC or CBASIC to what shipped with your favorite home computer. And S-100 systems like the Vector had a tremendous ecosystem of cards but my recollection from reading BYTE as a kid was it was not a plug-and-play matter to get them working in your system.

The web could have plausibly existed as early as FTP did. Which would have been 1972. Plenty of documents from that era had URL-like manual links of the form "pub/foo/bar.txt at MIT-AI", and many FTP servers supported anonymous login and were fast enough for real-time text document retrieval.

It is kind of embarrassing that it took 20 years to invent URLs and browsers.

I wrote a networked hypertext system in 1985 but it used a binary "page" format to save bandwidth. The GUI used was GEM.

Another road not taken could have been to define a rich text format in ASN.1 and build a browser on top of the OSI network stack.

Phd needed to understand Asn.1 and … osi network stack. Good luck.

Not really any conceptual difference between ASN.1 and something like Cap'n Proto.

I don't think that was the original Apple HQ, I think it was just one of many buildings that Apple occupied around Cupertino in the '80s.

Original Apple HQ was on Bandley in Cupertino.

(Semi-related trivia: Bioware's office in Austin is a copy of Apple Infinite Loop.)