any · textlog

wrote:

hey guys ☺️

replied to:

Hi lacie

wrote:

Testing, testing…

replied to:

You forgot the “one, two, three”. :-)

wrote:

, editing on mobile breaks the “280 chars / 10 lines max use and @mentionsand more”. Writing a new note doesn’t.

replied to:

Thanks, fixed.

wrote:

I need a new microblogging platform

wrote:

the day is done! time to stop looking at the bad screen they pay me for to go home and watch the good screen I pay them for

replied to:

So true... I type in a screen I paid for 🤣

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:

I had hit a throttle now. That’s a “subtle" way to tell me to slow down.

created a poll:

How often do you your , typically?

Twice a day or more57%

Once a day14%

A few times a week0%

Rarely or never29%

7 voted

wrote:

 Error: Provider rejected the request (invalid_request_error, 400): Claude Code 2.1.75 does not support this model; version 2.1.251 or newer is required. Run
 'claude update', or update the Claude desktop app, then try again. [request_id: req_011CedKqBRnC6Qr3m6nKEwNN]

I’m not using Claude Code. This is how you drop the ball.

wrote:

Devs! Drop your so we can follow each other! Love to see the projects you’re working on. Mine: —

…

replied to:

Unlike others, I’m far too quick to put stuff up here. I tend to look on building and showing as THE point, but maybe I’m wrong.

replied to:

I looked at your personal website. I too am my own worst enemy and afraid to write. I feel like I have something to say but at the same time I don't know what to say. How can that be?

Any conversation