It's a convenient way of looking at things. Saying that it's good at one thing and bad at others. What I have come to realize with LLMs is that anywhere where experts deal with them, they are very aware of their shortcomings with respect to someone's area of expertise. Sure, you might say they're good at producing text, yet a journalist or someone who simply writes a ton might be able to spot generated text in an instant. The same way a photographer or painter can spot these statistical methods instantly. Rinse and repeat for coding, translation, medicine and all other tasks specific to current societal roles.
That is not to say that you need to be an expert to spot LLMs or other generative ANNs, it comes down to attention and what you condition yourself to be attentive to. Of course pictures or code, or whatever will be convincing if you treat these things as secondary, like a doctor would treat creative writing as secondary to their job though necessary or a biologist would treat writing python scripts.
Let's consider what you are doing on a purely abstract level.
You prompt an generative large language model what to do.
You receive a set of information whose veracity you can not count on in any practical sense.
You go and confirm this information. Likely you are inputting similar prompts into you search engine of choice giving you answers from experts that are more or less guaranteed to be relevant and useful.
Then you act accordingly.
We could also do the following:
You have an idea/question that you search. You have keywords to type into forums. You get the relevant information. If need be you make a post on a questions board.
I see how there is a beauty in that animism we apply to objects that are not alive; Essentially applying essences to objects that run counter to those essences. I think AI culture is currently the closest thing to a mass cargo cult in modern society and cargo cults are beautiful. The lesson that can be learned is that humans and human society is not just some lonesome star on the horizon of life, but too an oscillation of its context or the ecosystem it exists in.
Just sucks that the object has gotta be something so inefficient and frankly stupid. Well, it kind of needs to be stupid at least. If it was smart it could talk back and then it loses its usefulness for the purpose of idolatry.
All psychoactive substances outside of stimulants are dumb -- usually...
Not to mention stimulants being dumb if used at dosages where you'd feel them. In the usually dumb category it goes.
I stopped drinking alcohol, mind you I wasn't a drinker to any real extend at any point in time ever, after doing psychedelics once. Capisce? And a year or so after doing psychedelics I started forming the belief that even they were completely unnecessary. Nowadays I mainly drink white teas or very light green teas, meditation is the only modification I need to my mental.
I wouldn't place too much trust in Bandcamp. It was acquired by Epic Games and then sold to Songtradr shortly after, it's waiting to enshittify. It might also be better to buy off of labels and artists directly if you want to "support" an artists or a label. Used CDs and vinyls are great too.
I’ve been using it for nearly a decade, it’s changed a lot.
Same. I just simply don't agree. If you consider tiny features not a soul needs like yearly reviews of one's listening habits and the roll out of podcasts as things worth mentioning, ok, they were not exactly doing anything radically new at that point anyway.
I don’t know why you’d be leaving ux out.
Because UX 90% adds nothing and chiefly serves to suggest innovation.
You must be trolling come on now.
I am. I want Spotify employees to read this and get steamingly mad. They are complicit in ruining music.
Spotify's functions have not changed a bit since 2016. It is literally the same application, what has changed are the tiny things they're doing for compatibility but that is not really worth mentioning. Intentionally leaving UX out.
Honestly what code is there to write for this glorified web browser? They're probably also outsourcing most of their data collection and recommendation algorithms.
Buy physical media, rip CDs, share shit and that's it
I realize that we might be talking entirely different languages here. For one, I do not at all hold the belief that social constructions have eternal qualities to them. Secondly, affluenza is a second order phenomenon to private wealth. Maybe third order phenomenon, as economic behaviour precedes it, standing in the middle between affluenza and private wealth. To me that's putting the horse before the cart a bit which doesn't compute.
Either they think they're evil 1337 h4xx0r overlords that are gonna enslave the planet or they genuinely think their statistical apparati do anything worthwile outside of making statistics on by now 70% other statistical machines.
+just wait until AI bros about Zip compression being more efficient at classifying than "AIs".
Not to mention that real high quality astrophotography by NASA and ESA is more often than not under free licenses. Literally the last case where it's necessary to generate something.
Don't get me wrong, I am not against people choosing on their own accord to go. Even if I think there are caveats with that because I don't consider people to ever be able to completely grasp their decisions and make decisions autonomously. We're after all limited creatures. I suppose in cases of extreme disease assisted suicide non the less represents a rational personal choice.
What keeps me from supporting an institution such as MAiD is how economic pressures can greatly affect the question of who dies and who dies when. If a person has the resources to pass in a comfortable environment, like a nice home in a calm part of town, they will consider assisted suicide much later in their trajectory than the person who has hardly any next of kin and no financial resources to install, say, the necessary aids at home. The former individual does not spend their last days in a stressful hospital environment. Of all examples I could give this is probably in the category of least extreme. As long as this contradictory aspect exists MAiD and everything like it will fail to live up to promises. Off the top of my dome I'm not able to name any regions where this would not be the case, even Sweden or Switzerland have dirt-poor strata that would be negatively affected.
In the actual free world where we have healthcare the mandates for treatment come from the physicians and the advice from medical professionals. It is far from perfect, but it is the best recommended care.
I would carefully disagree here. Would freedom not mean that the recipient of medical care gets to ultimately decide? Considering the state of the world, free world is a contradiction in adjectives. Especially here. I know this is a pedantic ask with it's scope, but I'm trying to nudge you away from a certain centrisms.
It's a convenient way of looking at things. Saying that it's good at one thing and bad at others. What I have come to realize with LLMs is that anywhere where experts deal with them, they are very aware of their shortcomings with respect to someone's area of expertise. Sure, you might say they're good at producing text, yet a journalist or someone who simply writes a ton might be able to spot generated text in an instant. The same way a photographer or painter can spot these statistical methods instantly. Rinse and repeat for coding, translation, medicine and all other tasks specific to current societal roles. That is not to say that you need to be an expert to spot LLMs or other generative ANNs, it comes down to attention and what you condition yourself to be attentive to. Of course pictures or code, or whatever will be convincing if you treat these things as secondary, like a doctor would treat creative writing as secondary to their job though necessary or a biologist would treat writing python scripts.