This is exactly why I try to impress on people the need to learn at least the basics of AI and pay attention to where it’s headed. The proof is still being reviewed, and it’d be a leap to say this means AI will start overturning assumptions in every field. But if it holds, it’s a clear example of what I consider a core reason we pursued AI in the first place.
I think of it as human plus AI being greater than the sum of its parts, and this is a near-perfect example. I know very little about this subject. Funny enough, I’m learning it by having AI explain it to me. Humans asked the question, built the tools to check the answer, and are now doing the work of understanding it. The AI brought relentless exploration that humans can’t usually afford, because we’re limited by ego, social status, money, time, and finite lives. Neither works alone: an AI claim without verification is just a confident guess, and humans without the AI never looked there.
I picture it as pulling on threads. Human intuition is limitless and hard to explain, but it’s throttled by bandwidth, both our literal brain bandwidth and the time and resources we have to spend on a problem. Hold too many threads and some slip away. We might sense that several things connect, but the picture loses resolution the more pieces we add. AI can hold far more of those threads at once.
A Veritasium video on rubber tells how Charles Goodyear basically ruined his life chasing one idea. That obsession is how he discovered vulcanization, but he still died in debt. With AI, we can make huge numbers of those attempts in parallel at a fraction of the cost. At least that’s the plan, once we solve a lot of other problems, like the power imbalance between whoever builds and owns AI and everyone else. I’m endlessly optimistic about what we can do with AI, if we can sort out the rest.
Many of you don't understand how serious this is, so let me break it down.
In computer science there is a famous kind of puzzle called 3-SAT. You are given a long list of yes-or-no switches and a set of rules about how they must be arranged, and you have to find a combination that satisfies every rule. The obvious way to solve it is to try every combination, but each new switch doubles the number of possibilities, so a puzzle with a few hundred switches would take longer than the age of the universe to brute force.
For decades, the smartest people in the field found clever tricks that made this a little faster, but every trick still hit the same wall: the time required kept exploding as the puzzle grew.
About 25 years ago, two computer scientists, Russell Impagliazzo and Ramamohan Paturi, working with Francis Zane, turned that wall into a formal idea.
They proposed the Exponential Time Hypothesis, which says this explosion is not a failure of human cleverness but a law of nature. No algorithm, however brilliant, will ever solve 3-SAT without the time blowing up exponentially. Nobody could prove it, but almost everyone believed it, and it became one of the foundations of modern computer science.
Researchers used it as a measuring stick. If you could show that solving some other problem quickly would also crack 3-SAT quickly, you had shown that problem was hopelessly hard too. Hundreds of papers, across scheduling, graphs, logic and much more, rest on this one assumption.
Now an internal AI model at OpenAI claims to have broken it. It says it found an algorithm that solves these puzzles meaningfully faster than the hypothesis allows, and it has checked the proof in a computer verification system called Lean.
And here is the remarkable part: the very people who proposed the hypothesis, Impagliazzo and Paturi, along with MIT's Ryan Williams, are now leading the public review of whether a machine has disproved their own idea.
So what happens next? If the disproof holds, a large part of theoretical computer science has to be revisited.
Every result that said "this problem cannot be solved faster, assuming ETH" loses its foundation, and researchers will have to work out which of those walls were real and which were simply where we stopped looking. It does not mean everything becomes easy. The new algorithm is still slow in absolute terms and this is not the famous P versus NP problem being solved.
But it means our map of what is possible was wrong in a place we were very confident about, and it was an AI that redrew it. If the disproof fails, the hypothesis survives and the field breathes out, but we will still have watched an AI produce serious, checkable work on one of the deepest questions in the discipline, closely enough that the founders of the idea had to take it seriously. Either way, something has shifted.
Odin retweeted
Elon wants chip fabs on the Moon now. Lunar soil is 20% silicon, he says, so you just mine it, refine it, stamp out solar cells and chips. Next level of the video game. His words.
He's a walking 1954 Popular Science cover. "Moon Factories by 1975!" You can picture him red-faced at some poor SpaceX engineer, jabbing a finger at a render: "I saw this in a magazine! Why can't you guys do this?" Because the magazine was fiction, Elon. That's why.
Boring question one: water. A single leading-edge fab burns through millions of gallons of ultrapure water every day, the kind filtered and polished until it turns chemically aggressive and rips ions out of anything it touches. Making it takes an industrial plant of its own. On the Moon you'd be chipping ice out of permanently shadowed craters at minus 230 C and feeding it through a purification chain that doesn't exist, powered by energy that also doesn't exist.
Boring question two: shaking. Lithography machines sit on tuned vibration isolation, springs and masses and counterweights engineered around Earth's gravity down to the millimeter. Lunar gravity is one sixth of that. Every spring rate and tuned mass in the stack assumes 1 g, and the Moon has its own moonquakes nobody has fully mapped. So forget shipping a fab up there. You'd have to redesign the entire physics package from scratch, in a hailstorm of charged abrasive dust that eats seals and bearings for breakfast.
And here's the part that makes it funny instead of just dumb. NASA studied all of this while Elon was still in college. Ignatiev and Freundlich published the actual paper in 1991: waste silicon from regolith processing, vacuum-deposited thin-film cells laid right on the surface. Serious work, fifteen years of it, and by 2005 the best anyone could promise was 5-8% efficient cells sprayed on melted moon glass, economical only at megawatt scale. Chips? Never in the plan. Not once, in thirty years of study. Then a 2006 follow-up walked back even the crude version, because melted regolith is too lumpy and dirty to make a decent substrate. The 2025 research gave up on purifying lunar silicon entirely and just ships the semiconductor layer from Earth.
Thirty years of papers saying "hard pass" and this guy shows up with the crayon version of a 1991 NASA study, calls it visionary, and the fanboys clap like he invented the Moon. He isn't a genius ahead of his time. He's a man who skips the reading, and it shows every single time he opens his mouth just to pump his cult stocks.
Elon Musk explains how to build AI satellites on the moon from lunar silicon and aluminum, and says 500 to 1,000 terawatts a year cannot be launched from Earth
“Well, the lunar soil is 20% silicon or something like that. So you can mine the silicon on the moon, refine it, and create the solar cells and the radiators on the moon. So get the radiators out of aluminum. So there’s plenty of silicon and aluminum on the moon to make the cells and the radiators. The chips you could send from Earth because they’re pretty light. But maybe at some point you make them on the moon, too."
"Like I said, it does seem like a sort of a video game situation where it’s difficult but not impossible to get to the next level. I don’t see any way that you could do 500 to 1,000 terawatts per year launched from Earth.”
Odin retweeted
My favorite genre (extraction shooters) got gentrified because
PvE Cryhards mad at Tryhards in a genre they don't even want or like
Was talking about this today on a friend's stream - people who don't like pvp play pvpve games and then get mad about the pvp. Literally a core design pillar of the game. If you don't like that, the game is not for you.
No game is for everyone, but some people think every game should be for them.
Odin retweeted
messaging my wife a link containing proof of her husband cheating on her from an anonymous instagram account and then when she clicks on it texting her to let her know she failed the family phishing test and she has to retake my cybersecurity course
Odin retweeted
Diablo 2 VR - Paladin is proving to be not only an absolute blast to play - but it's also some really amazing exercise. I was sweating buckets after a few hours of this.
Most fun exercise EVER. Diablo 2 whipping me into shape was not on my 2026 bingo card.
You really need to try this to believe it. It's become my new favorite VR game.
#VR #PCVR #VirtualReality #SteamFrame #
Odin retweeted
1. Helldivers switches to Easy Anti Cheat.
2. immediately, unmodded divers can't run the game due to either being locked out for no perceivable reason or the game crashing on startup.
3. those who CAN get in report terrible preformance, which for many also leads to crashes
4. adding EAC also basically curbs any progress on Helldivers 2 being playable on Steam Decks, because EAC hates Proton.
5. on top, many report that EAC is preventing Crossplay from working.
6. Arrowhead also avoiding saying how the most downloaded mods were QOL fixes like Hellpod Steering or Armor Transmog. or how they talked about mods in the past, and in the same update, didn't implement any long awaited QOL fixes (that the mods fixed in a week with AI, that they've "been working on" for 2+ years)
AND DESPITE ALL OF THIS!
where I gave them a week upon hearing about it this morning at about 6:30AM, modders and hackers already bypassed EAC within 4 hours of it's launch. because it's EAC.
good fuckin job Arrowhead, even your own discord is flaming you for this.
Odin retweeted
🕯️ Living, HUNGER’s Closed Beta is LIVE!
Gather your companions and venture into the world after the End. Will you make it back to the Château?
Prepare for your first Expedition with our Getting Started guide:
bit.ly/HUNGER_CB_Getting_Sta…
Odin retweeted
Despite having done this many times before, both with Hunger and previously with Hell Let Loose, there’s always something uniquely nerve-racking about the first few hours of a large-scale test.
In many ways, launching a test is an exercise in waiting to discover what goes wrong. It’s a challenging but absolutely necessary part of development, and I thought it might be interesting to explain what actually happens behind the scenes once we open the doors.
Essentially, the entire development team assembles in Discord, with different people monitoring just about every channel imaginable. We’re looking for emerging patterns, reports of bugs, technical issues, crashes, and anything else that might suggest something isn’t working as intended.
As issues emerge, our production team begins compiling and organising them. These are then fed through to QA, who start the process of reproducing them, establishing how consistently they occur, under what circumstances, and ultimately trying to isolate the underlying cause.
Naturally, we have a fairly strict order of priorities. Server crashes sit right at the top, followed by client crashes, serious game-breaking issues, bugs that negatively affect other players, and then a descending list of less critical problems.
Once we’ve isolated something, we then need to assess how difficult it is to fix, how much risk the fix introduces, and whether it actually makes sense to deploy that fix during the test itself.
A seemingly straightforward fix can introduce an entirely new set of problems, so there’s a constant calculation taking place around whether something warrants a hotfix, when that hotfix should happen, and whether it requires taking the servers offline. All of this needs to be weighed against the disruption caused to people who are actively enjoying the game.
Meanwhile, another part of the team is watching Twitch streams, YouTube videos, reading Discord conversations and generally observing how people are actually interacting with the game.
As developers, we spend so much time playing our own game that we inevitably develop a very particular understanding of how everything works. Watching thousands of people encounter those same systems, often for the first time, is enormously revealing.
We’re looking for the moments where players become excited, confused, frustrated, surprised, or start behaving in ways we hadn’t anticipated. Importantly, we’re not necessarily trying to eliminate every source of frustration.
Hunger - like every game - is one that deliberately incorporates friction. There are moments where we want players to feel uncomfortable, under pressure, or frustrated by a difficult situation. That’s what makes overcoming those situations rewarding.
The challenge is distinguishing between frustration that’s a valuable part of the experience and frustration that exists simply because something is poorly communicated, unnecessarily cumbersome, or not working particularly well.
At the same time, we’re paying very close attention to the conversations taking place within the community, particularly between people who are actually participating in the test. Often, the most useful feedback isn’t a formal bug report or a direct suggestion to the developers, but simply two players discussing something they’ve just experienced.
So while a Closed Beta might look like a relatively straightforward event from the outside, internally it’s an extraordinarily busy period of observation, diagnosis, prioritisation, decision-making, development and inevitably, quite a lot of waiting to see what breaks next.
For those of you joining us this week, thank you for taking part. Whether you’re reporting bugs, discussing the game, streaming it, or simply playing, you’re providing us with an enormous amount of information that will help shape what Hunger becomes.
Playing a zealadin in VR diablo 2
Mephisto was cool, but fighting through the Chaos Sanctuary leading up to Diablo was EPIC!
Diablo 2 VR is hand down one of my favorite VR games to date. And it's meant to be an isometric, top down, camera locked, mouse clicking ARPG. Make it make sense lol.
#VR #PCVR #VirtualReality #SteamFrame #Quest3 @Grummz



































