This is neat. It doesn't seem to conserve volume. If you spread the blob "inward", all the fluid disappears and you get a tiny thin spot.
That's a general problem I often run into with simulations. When you get it in the opposite direction it can have some very amusing results (e.g. energy in a physical system continues to increase).
You can also make infinite paint by spinning a small circle, then cycling between larger and small circles! It seems it also converges to secondary colors over time if any other primary color is added. Very cool!
If you step one step outside your ego for a moment, and see the world from a place of connectedness and unity rather than individual achievement and putting your name on things, you won't have to be sad about a statement like this.
What is connected when my LLM, extrapolating from a vague prompt about a cool liquid effect, takes this method and reproduces it without acknowledging the original author? Certainly not me and the author.
Using connectedness and unity to defend the fragmentation of the social bond is ironic, to say the least.
Next time someone wants to make a spreading liquid effect, their LLM is more likely to know how to make it. They won't have to read this work when looking for references, won't get to know the person who thought of this and shared it with the world.
Surely it's at least understandable why the author could be feeling a bit sad about it?
If I made something for fun, for the public, for free, and it exploded into common use, I would be super happy that I made something useful. But, I also always license any software I write (outside of work) as public domain like.
We are social creatures, and wanting to impress fellow beings is part of the reason why we do original things.
When you made something public domain pre-LLMs, you generally could expect people to give kudos to you.
With LLMs, if you make something public and an LLM gobbles it up, not only you get zero credit but you also can’t convincingly claim to have come up with it (since anyone can just assume you used an LLM), and neither can anyone else (even if they have come up with it fully independently).
If you don’t seek any recognition for your original work, then that’s fine, but I suspect you might be in a minority.
what is the point of three.js in this demo? It feels like showing me a CSS effect on a DIV and saying "built with React". It's a nice demo. But it's not doing anything that needs a giant library to do.
Might be as simple as “author always uses threejs for stuff like this and couldnt be bothered figuring out how to put a shader on a texture without it”
This is neat. It doesn't seem to conserve volume. If you spread the blob "inward", all the fluid disappears and you get a tiny thin spot.
That's a general problem I often run into with simulations. When you get it in the opposite direction it can have some very amusing results (e.g. energy in a physical system continues to increase).
You can also make infinite paint by spinning a small circle, then cycling between larger and small circles! It seems it also converges to secondary colors over time if any other primary color is added. Very cool!
They explain why this happens in the article.
The conclusion made me sad:
> Publishing this may mean the method is no longer something special.
If you step one step outside your ego for a moment, and see the world from a place of connectedness and unity rather than individual achievement and putting your name on things, you won't have to be sad about a statement like this.
What is connected when my LLM, extrapolating from a vague prompt about a cool liquid effect, takes this method and reproduces it without acknowledging the original author? Certainly not me and the author.
Using connectedness and unity to defend the fragmentation of the social bond is ironic, to say the least.
Next time someone wants to make a spreading liquid effect, their LLM is more likely to know how to make it. They won't have to read this work when looking for references, won't get to know the person who thought of this and shared it with the world.
Surely it's at least understandable why the author could be feeling a bit sad about it?
If I made something for fun, for the public, for free, and it exploded into common use, I would be super happy that I made something useful. But, I also always license any software I write (outside of work) as public domain like.
We are social creatures, and wanting to impress fellow beings is part of the reason why we do original things.
When you made something public domain pre-LLMs, you generally could expect people to give kudos to you.
With LLMs, if you make something public and an LLM gobbles it up, not only you get zero credit but you also can’t convincingly claim to have come up with it (since anyone can just assume you used an LLM), and neither can anyone else (even if they have come up with it fully independently).
If you don’t seek any recognition for your original work, then that’s fine, but I suspect you might be in a minority.
It's okay to cherish a knack you've come across and it is sad to hand it off. It is special when you produce something traditional.
Show some empathy, the world is far from connected and united.
Very cool work ! I was unreasonably disappointed by the element at the top ( header ) not being interactive thgh :_
what is the point of three.js in this demo? It feels like showing me a CSS effect on a DIV and saying "built with React". It's a nice demo. But it's not doing anything that needs a giant library to do.
Might be as simple as “author always uses threejs for stuff like this and couldnt be bothered figuring out how to put a shader on a texture without it”
This seems useful (after modifications) for building a calligraphy application.
The color mixing brings back memories of mixing a bunch of paint colors in high school. I guess that's an indication of how well it was executed.
I wish foundation really did spread this smoothly.
This is magic
I'm impressed.
cooool