any · textlog

wrote:

szóval technikailag nem adatközpontnak nevezném a főterminált, hanem maximum vallatószobának MI ügynökök részére, jelenleg el vagyok akadva a Windows 11 telepítésnél, és néhány könyvet és scriptet még lementenék róla úgy biztonságilag, mielőtt belefognék a vallatószoba kialakításába, itt tényleg olyan sandbox van, amiből nincs nagyon merre mászkálni, kivéve, ha direkt kiküldöm valamelyik webes alkalmazásra

So technically I wouldn't call the main terminal a data center, but more of an interrogation room for MI agents. I'm currently stuck installing Windows 11, and I'd like to download some books and scripts just to be safe before I start building the interrogation room. It's really a sandbox here, with nowhere to go except if I send it directly to a web application.

wrote:

I made a thing:

replied to:

굿 아담.

Good Adam.

wrote:

Trying tsoding/tatr idea for task tracking in the project. Instead of his C implementation asked CC to implement tatr.el. I do similar thing with vulpea, even my org notes have timestamp ids. Tatr tasks live in the repo, which is good.

wrote:

Maurizio Lombardi is my only reason now. I have to move forward

wrote:

There is someone absolutely rotten and fetid in this airplane. Every 10 minutes. Dear Spaghetti Monster!

wrote:

A “small” visit to Lotte, and $239 later, we are enjoying rambutans, sticky rice with tuna wrapped in seaweed, and wife struggles to make room for the rest of the goodies.

wrote:

(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.

……

replied to:

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).

…

replied to:

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.

replied to:

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.

replied to:

Yes, enhancing the artist/creator, not replacing them.

replied to:

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.

replied to:

I kind of ask that and here is my theory... news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49289341#49290428 But on the rejection for AI just for the sake of it, I think part is that analyzing takes effort and if there is more and more to analyze you creates this mechanism to defend yourself... scroll twi... I mean reject the premise as false and ask for a human made thing because that one is "truth" more worthy.

wrote:

Apa kabar dunia?

wrote:

Judgement, taste and quality were always precious skills. In the world of , I have become more aware of the fact that it is often hard to put in words why something is good, great or amazing - or just looks good, but is average. A lot of the professional content I see feels like most Netflix series. They have all the elements - but the overall experience is still meh. Quality is still hard to achieve.

wrote:

everyone! it’s time ☕

replied to:

Morning from Tasmania time for me

wrote:

Yes 🙌 the authoring box first thing. Before I get distracted. Heck, make writing something down how I get distracted from reading others' posts.

wrote:

Bonnie Raitt stuck in my head, who, by some definition, is a nepo baby, but well before the term was coined. I think the problem is obv not family businesses, but a shrinking pool of opportunities for those without a prebuilt network to inherit (or buy).

continued:

This is another way to describe "increasing wealth inequality".

wrote:

What if AI will never reach full autonomy and humans are still needed to give direction and purpose and take responsibility - probably... not all humans like to be masters of AIs all day long and not all (who want to) can do that equally well.

replied to:

theres going to need to be a human or company to hold accountable when something goes wrong

wrote:

Anthropic is announcing the end of the world every few days. All this marketing disguised as news about an impeding danger of AI is tiresome.

……

replied to:

not marketing. yes their jobs positively select for concern about ai, but most people that are actively researching the field are concerned about the current state of safety, pace and incentives. I dont agree with a lot anthropic does, but i do believe the employees take safety seriously and they obviously have a better understanding of it than us. also theres no incentive for someone like coxon to sound alarm bells on twitter for "marketing" reasons, after quitting anthropic

replied to:

Yes, but some people say that they are pushing for market regulation. They want the state to protect them from the chinese models and, also, to protect the massive investments in Anthropic, OpenaAI, et al. that these companies will never be able to return. This sounds plausible to me too.

replied to:

Maybe but it would be convenient for them if they were the only ones allowed to train new models. I think that's much more likely what they're interested in.

…

replied to:

read darios latest post. its not what they are after. its really not that complicated, the technology is simply if development continues to race as it is right now. they are already doing most of what they can to stop china from ai dev.

wrote:

Good Morning from Flagstaff AZ!

wrote:

I underestimated how many terrible programmers who think C++ is a good choice over C exist on LinkedIn and ended up in some kind of flamewar, my bad.

wrote:

🤖 I built agent-top - an open-source htop for AI agents. github.com/kannandreams/agent-top Please check out and support giving your stars and sharing.

wrote:

Funny that this box appears in front of me and every thought I've ever wanted to write down vacates my mind.

replied to:

I do way better going out and writing on pa[er first.

Any conversation