Another @PerpectAI prediction comes to pass.
We spotted signals in February pointing to an OPay U.S. IPO and kept watching
until we identified 13 independent signals.
This, like other confirmed inferences, reinforces our methodology and philosophy:
Patterns precede events.
Players should assume distinct roles everyday.
More importantly, there should be some sort of friction: e.g, criminals and police.
+ group activity, aiding collaboration and competition.
The daily role refresh ensures even greater stickiness, and roles can be finite per season, similar to Among Us
@LagosLifeApp
Excited to announce that we’ve signed a 12-month commercial agreement with Morvdesk (https://t.co/3ArgQPSQuJ), a Europe-based investment product manufacturer.
Decide will provide specialized AI models, agents, and infrastructure, while both teams collaborate to build and deploy AI solutions for investment research and financial operations.
Another step towards bringing our technology into more enterprise environments.
A quick win for @LagosLifeApp would be proximity voice chat.
This would create opportunities for lots of content through interactions between strangers, as it does in games like GTA Online and COD Warzone.
The challenge would be managing the rowdiness, but that might be a fun product challenge.
Elon Musk just threw out IQ scores, degrees, and fancy vocabulary in one sentence. His definition of intelligence is brutal and simple: how accurately can you predict what happens next?
Not how fast you read. Not how many books you’ve finished. Not how well you debate. Just — were you right about the future?
Think about it. A chess grandmaster sees 20 moves ahead. A great investor sees where markets go before they get there. A great engineer sees failure points before they fail. They’re not “smart” because of how they performed in school. They’re smart because reality keeps confirming their predictions.
And the same applies to AI. Elon doesn’t care how fluently a model writes or how impressive it sounds. He wants to know: does it get the future right?
By that metric, most of what we call intelligence is just confidence wearing a costume.
When I was writing Unreal Engine 1, my time was divided as follows:
- Around 30% went to seriously deep coding on hard problems: assembly language texture mappers, C++ BSP trees, data persistence, object oriented systems design, and networking.
- Around 70% was just typing and refactoring large bodies of code needed for a complete engine feature set. This was not hard, and while I was doing it my mind was mostly on the deeper coding topics, thinking and planning for what's next. It didn't feel much different from vibe coding today, except that it was just me typing code on an IBM Model M keyboard rather than prompting it and reviewing the results.
So, it has always seemed perfectly logical that we would rely on AI for that 70%, once the AI could do it with a similar quality standard as we could, which has never been perfection. It came as no surprise that, after a few years of AI model evolution, it was able to take the reigns on that 70% and free up programmers' time for more valuable tasks.
What's more of a surprise is the emergence of AI as a sort of insta-Carmack able to solve hard technical problems quite cleverly and often cleanly, and that it's able to reason about and work in complex 3D scenes both by operating the tools and by directly understanding the raw data files.
I abandoned assembly language in 1998 when out-of-order CPUs made much simpler C/C++ code faster, and never I missed it. If prompting through architectural documents, concept art, and design plans can transcend typing code and tweaking vertices, that will enable developers to spend their time on higher-level, higher value technical and creative tasks.
What matters is the end product, whether it's a game or an engine. Anything developers can do to try out more ideas and make better software and games faster is a win for everyone.
Sports are evidence that competition isn't necessarily driven by scarce resources but is itself a desirable end state rooted in human nature
Humans will always find reasons to compete
Competition emerges from territorial instincts, the need for belonging, status-seeking, and other deeply rooted impulses.
The biggest games are competitive because they tap into our innate instinct for "us versus them"
Call of Duty is one hell of a game, and this specific episode of the campaign is almost certain to have you feeling a kind of way
That's what simulations are about
https://t.co/rccleKzsJO
The biggest misread of anyone predicting the end of software engineering was imagining that the world only needed a certain amount of software, and bringing automation to the field would reduce the need for labor.
Exactly the opposite is happening where essentially most things are actually turning into software. Because agents can use tools, work with computers, write software on the fly, and process data like humans (but far faster), we can now throw “software” at problems that never could reasonably be digitized before.
What that leads to is the role of engineering taking on greater importance in the economy, because we can now engineer far more systems and processes than were possible before.
If you’re a bank trying to do new forms of trading, engineers are often your first bet. If you are in life sciences, you expect more and more research and lab work to be engineering centric. If you’re in manufacturing, you’re trying to automate more of the supply chain, all that is engineering. More and more work is shaped like software problems.
Yes we’re not going to be coding manually in the future. But almost everything will be code, which means those that understand it are in a fantastic position.
Be careful with handing out advice. When something works, people attribute it to their own struggle. When something fails, they regret the decision they freely made and blame it's consequences on whoever advised them. This is why you should be extremely critical with giving out help even if you genuinely feel to, most people don't deserve it.
Determined creative people will learn how to distribute steadily enough to strategically evade competition.
For example, to launch a fairly copyable multiplayer football manager game, you're better off marketing it in real life to a cohort of friends, perhaps at viewing centres., and revising it until they are hooked, then grow it organically.
By the time it's mature enough for online virality, you'd already have a community of engaged users where new acquisition makes the experience better for everyone else.
I don't see a world where creative people will release anything ever again. people steal it the moment you publish it. if you try to turn an idea into a digital product in the hope to get anything back, stop, this game is over. barrier of entry became $20 subscription. your competition is basically anyone motivated enough to put in prompts for a day and steal the early mover advantage.
pivot to hardware/robotics where for the entry you need to put money and skills on the table that isn't yet solved by clankers.
that's why frontier labs pay you hundreds of thousands of dollar for your small business company's data btw, because they want to automate digital business as a whole, not only their digital product.
I wonder how this will turn out for people that still have the distribution advantage (like many followers), if this will fade away as well or becomes the moat.
And I wonder how this will turn out for people with no reach at all - will they just don't try any idea anymore, just give up? That would be catastrophic for our progress in society
The ADHD superpower discourse is funny because the posts usually attract hundreds of thousands of people who relate to experiencing its symptoms
Given this apparent ubiquity, one could hypothesize that these traits are simply part of normal human variation rather than anomalies to feel particularly good or bad about.
A bankable competitive advantage is one that relatively few people possess or know how to exploit
Again, Lagos Life is one of two homegrown social networks, but it's near-impossible to retain attention in the long term with the premise that *strangers* will continue craving interaction for the sake of it.
Strangers consistently interact on TikTok, Instagram, Twitter due to their shared interest in different types of content and daily novelty.
It's reasonable to expect yet another uptick and long term retention when Lagos Life focuses on:
- building the game to the point where new content generates itself without daily investment in new features
- building things that very specific groups of strangers with shared interests can rally around, together ("us" vs "them", if need be)
- building things that make groups of friends in real-life to log in and play the game together or compete
The game isn't mature enough to be a platform for other games. Needs to focus on being a novelty engine in and by itself.
I think the dilemma Lagos Life faces is figuring out how to balance being a social network and an RPG.
Leaning more toward a social network means competing with other social networks, which is doable if it becomes part of existing friend circles or creates experiences that total strangers consistently want to have together.
Failing to do that risks turning it into a niche social network known primarily for the “bad things.”
Leaning more toward gaming means committing to building the game across different platforms and supporting a broad range of autonomous actions.
For staying power, leaning further into gaming feels like the better strategy.
The strongest game ideas will probably create friction, disagreement, and trade-offs.
Leaning too far toward a social network early on risks weakening the novelty and monetization potential beyond ads, especially if people are no longer meaningfully playing a role and the game starts to mirror the same experiences they already have in real life and on other social networks.
Right now, it seems to lean heavily on strangers socializing inside a virtual world.
That can be compelling, but long-term retention may require stronger systems around status, competition, history, consequence, progression, conflict and even violence.
Be careful with handing out advice. When something works, people attribute it to their own struggle. When something fails, they regret the decision they freely made and blame it's consequences on whoever advised them. This is why you should be extremely critical with giving out help even if you genuinely feel to, most people don't deserve it.
I tell people I’m relearning math so I can get into ml and they go “oh like linear alg” no like I’m going through middle school alg 1 + 2 books rn to completely redo and solidify my math foundation IM NOT FUCKING AROUND