Had to take care of something for school. But now in bed with my book.
Any conversation
I'm Nobody! Who are you?
Are you - Nobody - too?
Then there's a pair of us!
Dont tell! they'd banish us - you know!
How dreary - to be - Somebody!
How public - like a Frog -
To tell your name - the livelong June -
To an admiring Bog!
I'm doing experiments with short attention-span students and code. Starting with python, and, oddly, now working in BASIC. As a C programmer of 40+ years, I find this aesthetically and pedagogically displeasing, but I am delighted to see them getting fully absorbed in writing
130 PRINT "You have been eaten by a bear!" : GOTO 900. Yes there is spaghetti, but it's their spaghetti and they seem to take delight in debugging it. Python will come later. Soon, a tablet stand where you type in “what do you feel like eating today?”, and it suggests the best and freshest products.
or just talk to it.
…(deleted post)
For 30 years, productivity sky-rocketed with the advancement of automation and computing. Meanwhile, a decline in longevity was observed, correlated to sleep depravation. Productivity improvement goes to the owners class' pockets, sleep benefits the workers health.
For 30 years, productivity skyrocketed through automation, yet longevity plummeted as a direct result of sleep deprivation. While these gains accrue to the owner class, sleep remains an undervalued element of the worker's health. We are trading life expectancy for chump change.
i was under the impression life expectancy has been steadily increasing over the last century, where are these quotes from? and which date?
…
That said, in Canada working class started loosing life expentancy for the 3rd year in a row, and WHO figures show a decline in improvement of life expentancy globally. But hey, I am just a no-one on the internet spewing bs :)
a decline in the improvement of life expectancy isn't the same as a decline in life expectancy, it's just that it's improving less fast now, we might be reaching biological limits however?
(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.