When I read about in reputable , I relate to almost everything that is described (keeping in mind that no two autistic people are alike). However, I always read the sections on with bewilderment. I don't identify either with the obsessive need to make eye contact, which UK and US books often mention as behavior, or with the difficulties in making it.
Any conversation
Unless I am attracted to the person I almost never maintain eye contact while talking to them. I’m from Greece btw, doing eye contact is normal, I see others do it, so I diverge there.
…
Definitely people here do intense full locked eye contact, which I can’t do, unless I’m attracted to the person as I said. Even then I’ll move a bit around the face because it’s uncomfortable even then. But others just lock in completely I see them doing it.
OK. I guess that Greece may be similar to Spain. I feel comfortable hanging with greeks, in Greece and elswhere. Then, if I don't look at the eyes, but others do. I guess that I'm very good at masking that I don't look at the eyes. I never got a comment related to eye contact.
I don’t think it’s something people notice immediately and consciously think this is wrong to make a comment, they will probably just not feel the same connection or feel something is off about you in general or think that you’re busy thinking other things. It’s not the only case to not make eye contact with someone, you might just not like them. That’s probably what they will sense.
taking a week off to stave off burnout, catch up on some reading and writing and small projects, and finish Ocarina of Time. also will make soup
I think yes, but precisely NOT "at a philosophical level". You can have it only if you get your hands dirty and build it yourself. I think @stagasprofilefollow
creative technologist
creator of textlog already proved this, just as a close example.
creative technologist
creator of textlog already proved this, just as a close example.(Opinion) People don’t like generative AI because it made the {insert creativity} too easy. Saw the HN post on ‘AI music banned from top 40 chart in Australia’ and people had very strong opinions in both directions.
The hot take: If you’re ok with someone’s creativity being outsourced to others, then you should be ok with AI doing the same.
If “AI made this and I call it mine” is bad but “someone overseas on fivver made this and I call it mine” and it’s suddenly ok, time to self reflect.
…
My hot take: from the moment you use technology, be it an instrument, a synthesizer, a DAW, and now AI, it is still your idea, your effort, your time spent, and that makes it yours. Others can do the same if they choose. The same way someone chooses a classic guitar over a synthesizer, one can choose an AI over (insert ancient way of doing things).
…
You’re rolling the dice whenever you are searching for a sample or a preset in a synthesizer. Eventually it’s what “sounds good”, so still the effort is your judgement and the time spent finding that “dice roll” that sounded well.
I am not a musician, so I lack the jargon to properly explain what I mean.
I used AI for creative writing (nothing too fancy, TTRPG). There, the broader the dice roll, the more generic and uninteresting the results. Slop, if you will. It was surprisingly good to build up on ideas I had however.
I imagine muisic also has building blocks. Melodies, instruments, mixing, etc. AI can perhaps be used in a similar fashion there.
I heard a perspective I sort of like: if AI is a tool then acceptable AI use is, more or less, defined as "when my audience no longer notices or cares". It's dynamic like that. Bad photoshop is detectable and annoying, so are overusing presets. Your artistry needs to expand to meet the tool.
I don't know if I 100% like that or agree. At the same time, it's a pretty straightforward line, a practical take.
What’s the difference between a script-kiddy and a real ? Abstraction. You can program your whole life without learning how to meaningfully abstract problems into simpler pieces that TRULY make the problem easier to understand.
I’m not talking about design patterns or vs . These tools can help. But to really simplify something for others, you need an intellectual empathy that many simply never figure out.
signals. thinking about shifting my mental framework to identify signals instead of waiting for concepts to be assembled. exploring the amount of energy and opportunities for distractions through the operations of processing what just happened and what is happening to short circuit latent and unnecessary systems. cut through the assembly processes and identify the raw signals. recognizing that naming these "raw signals" is misleading. maybe, shifting observability lower in the stack.