ch_fr

care to elaborate a bit on this? how exactly does being a skeptic "sabotage" a team, are you saying that if teams are not becoming 10000000000X engineers it's entirely the fault of the one skeptic in the room?

I don't buy it that you tried everything open source had to offer but I do agree that kdenlive is pretty... eh... never used it but the little I saw from it didn't make me feel they're about to change the world of editing.

Even though it's not Open Source, davinci resolve has been pretty good to me, even the free version, it's sick bro you should try it out! Even if you do feel like you'd rather make your own software suite, you should at the very try to take a few notes from davinci Fusion, your users will be thankful:

- having a node representation for compositions has some drawbacks but massive advantages when it comes to visualizing and organizing scenes - copying nodes/layers/effects and getting plaintext in your clipboard is EXTREMELY powerful and underused, it basically means that any text manipulation becomes potential automation. This is a super cool feature and even though I will not use your software, I think you should look into it!

Looks like you have a very utilitarian approach to it, in that case, would you be fine with eradicating just diffusion and video models?

By your logic, they don't particularly contribute to scientific productivity/advances: it's not like you can use stable diffusion to generate an architectural diagram.

GenIA for images and videos is only really used to copy artstyles, make fake menus and create misinformation so wouldn't you agree that eradicating this part would not only preserve your described "useful applications" but also allow providers to allocate more resources to "useful" and "scientific" AI?

I know that local models have become decent enough that this isn't really doable, but I'm only proposing this thought experiment because you seem to think people are saying this should be all or nothing. But the truth is, if you get a genie to wipe away just diffusion models, the entire internet gets much better (or at least back to regular levels of bad), no one loses anything, and a whole lot of people stop complaining/campaigning against the productivity gains in your field.

I will not stand for the Krita slander >:( ! Gimp and Inkscape I haven't used much, but they also had pretty neat updates lately.

I have used old audacity and musescore-owned audacity, and I have to say it's a massive glow-up.

I use REAPER for most things, but audacity has found a nice little niche when it comes to recording voice clips because it just does it with less hassle.

It's in good hands.

But it does relate, dunno what to tell you. You think it doesn't relate because your reasoning stops at "they're not right so there is literally nothing else that's relevant about any of this", and what I'm saying to OP is "they're not right, and here's why those people would go around being wrong on the internet, and why a big (statistically insignificant) debunk will mostly just be you preaching to the choir", I'm steering the conversation that way because I felt it would be more productive.

There's nothing more I can say that I haven't already said at this point, understanding that people have emotions (and once again, understanding!= agreement) literally has no downside for you when looking at any kind of discourse.

Call me preachy or whatever, I'm just trying to find a topic of discussion that's not just the usual yelling past eachother: "Large providers have ROI!!" vs "Large providers are in the red!!", not opening that can of worm.

You keep trying to twist what I'm saying into "guys you have to be nice to the ai haters and meet them at the middle, even when they insult you :))))". Once again you have this kneejerk reaction to the words "emotions" and "feelings" as if it would make you weak to acknowledge that "humans feeling a certain way act a certain way".

I'll once again have to remind you that all of what I said was just "yeah these guys are really pissed off, here's why they might be" and never once asked any of you to agree with them, or that their conclusions about rsync were right, or anything like that.

You act like "understanding" is only ever a gift/favor you do to someone else. While it's true that in many cases it is, "understanding" can also be something that just helps you and doesn't require interaction or agreement, it's when you think "oh there's no debating with these guys so it's probably not worth it to engage" or "oh these people are talking about X but it looks like the Y underlying issue is the actual problem, so talking about X might be a waste of time".

You completely disregard human emotions as if doing so makes you stronger, but all it does is make you more confused, surprised and angry whenever you're faced with irrational reactions you can't understand.

Now if you decide to interpret all of that as me saying "I am in moral agreement with the dogpiling and the witch hunts shown in that github thread", that is a failing of yours.

Yeah yeah the usual "look, these anti-ai people are so EMOTIONAL and HYSTERICAL while we're very logical and fact-based", I've lurked for a while so I read that one plenty of times.

OP spends a lot of time time doing statistics, but when another person replies "hey, 2 claude-authored features is not really statistically significant", the author literally agrees and says "my point was to show that you can't draw conclusions". Direct quote:

> I'm only trying to show there's no evidence for the anti-AI hypothesis

---

And here's another thing. How exactly is it self-unaware to say "Hey, I get your frustration with people being assholes, I'm not excusing it, but it can never hurt to understand why some of them have become so extreme in their vitriol, here's a few reasons for their feelings".

Is "feelings" a curse word or something? What's so wrong with understanding the emotional component of the AI discourse?

Talking about "emotions" is not destructive when the topic at hand is literally people being driven by emotion under a github thread.

What the article is saying is "these people are acting irrational because they're evil and the enemy, so here's how I prove them wrong with statistics!", and my comment to the article was "hey, you seem to go with the assumption that this is all based on pure evil, here are a few reasons why people might get tired, and then angry, about this whole thing".

You quite literally exemplify my point when I said that the analysis is mostly just >ammo for your next "debate with your anti-AI ennemies", it's a tool that allows you to not engage and dismiss any argument as "not on the side of truth because not on the side of the numbers".

All of this even though, and I need to state this again, I never once rejected the analysis or the results that OP came to, all I did was point out that OP is also engaging in "us vs them" think with the occasional "wink wink, CLASSIC AI hater amirite?" sprinkled in the article.

I am more inclined to be critical of AI boosters, so what? Am I supposed to crumble under the weight of immense cognitive dissonance because I have... a stance in the discourse?

These guys on the github thread aren't my friends, I have no concern for them embarrassing themselves or leaving a bad digital footprint by drawing ms paint gore. I also have no concern for OP, but it just so happened to be the post I found, and I just so happened to be in the mood to leave a comment.

Engaging in LLM discourse is already a waste of my time, I'm not going to waste more of it just to avoid fallacious accusations of double standards because I didn't "do the same for the other side".

This article is a rant disguised as data analysis.

I don't know how to word this in a non-confrontational, respectful way, but this article just feels like ammo for your next "debate with your anti-AI ennemies" where you get to say "look, I proved with data that those people had a disproportionate reaction and have double standards, therefore anyone who dislikes LLMs or their impact are the same!". Like, sorry, I know that sounds really reductive, but this really is the vibe I get when reading this and your other replies where you repeatedly talk about "showing the hypocrisy and double standards".

The global LLM discourse has grown massive, it spans trillions of dollars in promises and investments and affects pretty much everyone, so it's the easiest thing in the world for both sides to just find some people being assholes in the other camp and say "look, here's how [other camp] behaves".

The irrational, extreme, and heinous reactions are partly bandwagoning, and you can go about your day thinking that anyone who reacts like that is evil. But if you wanna dig a bit further, you'll notice that the entire media sphere has been screaming in everyone's ears for a few years now, that they're expandable, low-value-human-capital. All the money in the world (exaggerating a little) is being spent on making sure to remind anyone who opens a computer, opens a website, looks at a billboard, or turns on his tv... that their boss really really really wants to replace them.

Now you'll say that the friendly rsync contributor has nothing to do with any of this and... well yeah he doesn't. You don't need to agree with an emotional response to understand where it's coming from, and even if you're still dead set on considering them "the enemy", then understanding why the anti-AI crowd reacts like that is STILL a positive for you.

I wholeheartedly believe it's 100% intentional of Anthropic to use "vulnerability" to describe something that ranges from "serious attack vector" to "you forgot to add this variable to the useEffect dependency array".

The difference between serving 1 and 1 billion http queries is not the same as the difference between generating 1 and 1 billion tokens.

The startup blitz-scaling-market-capturing playbook makes makes sense when you spend to scale, not when you spend because you scale, yeah, I understand that step 2 is "and now you squeeze the users", but it will need to be by such a bigger factor...

But if it's fully being amortized, then it means they don't buy new Nvidia GPUs anymore for a while. The situation is either "your GPU AND the datacenter infrastructure it's running on is obsolete", or "Nvidia's profits tank because people are staying with current-level infrastructure".

Good article, I think most hero images are pointless in the first place, so having them diffusion-generated now feels like a signal to just not read the piece. It goes from "look at this irrelevant image" to "look at this irrelevant image, and I have bad taste by the way!"

I'm reading "people don't care so it doesn't matter" in the replies, in that case can we agree to just drop all unneeded illustrations altogether when it comes to technical articles?