th0ma5

I certainly think both can be true, we can have different contexts of technology as we get on the train and go through this cycle Adams describes, as well as fundamentally disagree with a technology's marketing for fundamental reasons. Additionally you could be both and this isn't a conflict.

I don't know if you're right or not, but a lot of people who would otherwise be fans of meatheaded thugs are laughing at these people. I do worry the spectre of some unstoppable idiocy is myth. People at the time weren't used to mass media at all, and there were many other dynamics that may not sum up to a succinct conclusion. Perhaps people saying they were like the new Hun or whatever made people less likely to laugh at them, but, I know these people today are also pretty hilariously inept. Like for instance they all think facial recognition doesn't work with your lower face covered, and they don't realize that they actually don't have good discipline on their mask usage, and the tools they use on their phones to try to id people aren't nearly as good as the tools regular people use to track them.

I think this is covered in the Bainbridge automation paper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironies_of_Automation ... When the user doesn't have practiced context like you described, to be expected to suddenly have that practiced context to do the right thing in a surprise moment is untenable.

You're not wrong that that's the intent, I'm just not even seeing stupid bigots that are happy with it and they also don't seem to care about that either. So, once they lose even the hateful for not being hateful enough they're just as likely to be embarrassed by all of this or fracture amongst themselves with various no true bigot fallacy infighting. This has been the more recent mini patterns at least.

The difference for me is that the Stasi seemingly had more competent people and more people that actually believed in what they were doing and thought it effective. With none of that, these are the actions of an organization that is failing and full of incompetence. It is even more alarming how effective they could be if anyone actually believed in them, including their own leadership or if the cause actually attracted worthwhile participants.

Power tools give way to robotics though so it seems small minded to think so small? Have you been following the latest trends though? New models come out all the time so you can't have this tool brand mindset. Keep studying and you'll get there.

I think it's important for people who want to write a comment like this to understand how much this sounds like you're in a cult.

Glad you found a way to be unfalsifiable! Lol

I think when a moderator keeps intervening like this it really does mean that there's something wrong here. I think people would be less mad if you just went ahead and said that you have some kind of special arrangement here with this influencer and post publicly that you like them constantly spamming the site and letting their fans flood the place with deflection and appeals for donations to them. Even YouTube had to add a sponsored post disclaimer.

[flagged]

Despite open plugins, and mostly open end result file formats, the entirety of the media software world is built around proprietary software primarily for several reasons: Ephemeral fads have you making money in one big upfront push, integration of some new technique doesn't lend itself to open standards, or the fact that the actual bulk of paying customers are presumably working musicians with budgets, and that market is ultimately small. The side effect of this, much like radios, rc planes and drones, and many other hobbies, is that a collection of smaller product producing organizations have an even smaller, more even playing field full of smaller professionals and some amateurs. Some of the modular hardware producers have the right idea and provide free versions of their hardware as plugins as a marketing gimmick for their actual hardware. However, outside of the Linux world, the mystique of a proprietary salve that will supplant your creative block pushes people towards short sighted sales pushes instead of trying to lock in a give and take interaction with the broader community.

But I would love every thing that you list. I think things like PipeWire for better or worse are pushing things towards sanity, or least, better ideas for managing the mess in the open source world, which is decades in the making.

This is the sort of patronizing response of someone who is repeatedly being asked why they won't leave who then starts talking about how leaving is a "philosophical metaphor" for some bullshit that no one is interested in. And you take these rejections as an opportunity to link to something unrelated to deflect from this criticism. It's insulting, and you should be ashamed of yourself for behaving like this. If the moderators understood your content at all, they'd ban you for this behavior. How in the world is this how a decent person reacts to others? And the site will prevent people from replying to you at a certain point, lest you think the silence is somehow an organic agreement, it certainly is not.

I have yet to see a study design that sufficiently controls for all of the variables. In general it seems that if you could do the work on your own, it may not save time, and in the long run, most all output needs to be reviewed, perhaps moreso than if you were composing it yourself... And the additional variables include things like finding out of the box solutions either with or without the model outputs, which is hard to control for as well. Even more impossible to control variables are model quality, training material related to the topic, and many more of those classes of issues that may not be publically available or even possible to trace fully. Truly, anecdotes are not informative of the general experience. It is literally the cliche that is mentioned on this site periodically "these are the lotto numbers that worked for me."

If you believe this then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

At least Excel worked a lot better.

Anyone have a schedule that works for different Timezones ??

I came here with this perspective and it made the rest of the thread feel like submarine PR cleanup for this mess. Perhaps they can afford to keep their high profits because of AI company money?

I just wanted to say I think it is doing people a great disservice to advocate for these specific kinds of tools, but the last paragraph is a universally correct statement, seemingly permanently.

No, when did I say that?

If this had any substance then it could be criticized, which is what they're trying to avoid.

I think constantly replying to everybody with some link which doesn't address their concerns is condescending and disrespectful.

Yes but follow this forward, what about current models would be informative about future models. We've seen waves of "insight" come and go, to the point where there are endless waves of people at different points in the journey, there's a cohort of people that would be upset at the statement that prompt engineering is useless, and others that would support that as exactly right, and still more that would have a redefinition of the word prompt to include many other things. This is my exact complaint. You would want it work like how you want it to work, that our collective discoveries will turn into education and learning, but the content in the models and the subsequent inference based on that information have all not behaved like the physical sciences with regards to discoveries providing universal and reliable knowledge.

I've read enough to find this statement to be largely correct. I found myself fully aware of the kinds of people who admired the thought patterns they wrote about that now I wonder why more assholes haven't read the stuff, it seems like they'd like it.

It's a shame that developers read these articles and not project managers.

I personally don't understand why asking these things to do things we know they can't do is supposed to be productive. Maybe for getting around restrictions or fuzzing... I don't see it as an effective benchmark unless it can link directly to the ways the models are being improved, but, to look at random results that sometimes are valid and think more iterations of randomness will eventually give way to control is a maddening perspective to me, but perhaps I need better language to describe this.

There was also a lot of profiteering going on? This was talked about quite a bit? And it's still going on in other markets with other things like cars??

No way to ever know in which condition that being somewhat accurate is going to be good enough or not. And no way to know how accurate the thing is before engaging with it so you have to babysit it... "Can do things" is carrying a lot of load in your statement. It makes the car with no brakes and you tell it not to do that so it makes you one without an accelerator either.

This submarines a few blame the AI haters ideas while promoting some honest aspects of reality.

I wonder if it was Cinepaint, one of the earlier Linux success stories

My question for OCR automation is always which digits within the numbers being read are allowed to be incorrect?