contrast

What you're describing though is that individual source of content tends to sound like itself. That isn't a problem so much as what we tend to want and expect.

When we say AI sounds same-ish we mean all sources of content can sound the same - fiction and non-fiction, news articles and blog posts, marketing pitches and ai drafted personal messages, all sound kinda the same. That is a different situation, and that's before you get to "and that one sound is LLMish".

Why would it be? I don't expect, say, a financial analyst to disclose their use of Excel when presenting their findings. It's an article about why DuckDB 2.0 is faster, not how DuckDB was developed.

"You're asserting that everyone is using it wrong. It's your personal opinion, and a baseless one at that"

Their comment does not assert that. They are responding to someone else's assertion, and turning it around to make a completely different point. It's a common form of argument - "if you're saying that the problem is everyone's getting it wrong, then I disagree and the problem must be something else."

Basically the exact same point that you are using to launch a stream of insults!

Saying that it is "silly", "detached from reality" and "delusional" for making assumptions about folk is the most incredible self-own.

In the UK and EU you absolutely do not have the right to be compensated for sales or deals not closed in part due to a delayed flight.

Your entire point is completely at odds to reality. In the general case, contracts do not guarantee there are never problems, and problems happening do not create an automatic entitlement to sue. The entire point of contracts is to protect both parties.

Ultimately, if you are travelling, you are relying on *you* to get yourself there. Airlines and hotels will help, there's compensation available to some degree, but extrapolating that out to "everything is someone else's responsibility and I deserve to be compensated for everything I hoped to achieve" is pure fantasy.

I broadly agree. Plain text formats remain consistently accessible and flexible.

That said, arguably the dominant AI artifacts are binary images, video, audio.

The "preview panes for other kinds of tasks" will be a big deal. Humans tend prefer rich text editors (I think?). Also spreadsheets, page layouts, node graphs, timelines, hex editors, ...

So maybe the preview panes are actually editors themselves? Speaking personally, I enjoy closely coupled combinations of underlying plain text representations with task-specific UI on top.

I'd argue the spirit of entrepreneurialism and salesmanship in the story is more American!

I've just been through this process. Very painful. SF based company, US founder.

Same founder story - couldn't focus on customers, couldn't focus on product, always a shiny new idea to distract him from had just been decided or what needed to be decided. Each idea could be the thing that made the difference. Willing to work hard, very capable of talking a good game, not able to deliver.

Tesla had a product that worked, was essentially first and best on the market, not that many models, not that many features. Focusing on the hype and gloss is ignoring a lot of substance. What even is the point of criticising a startup for its hype when its exactly what people want to hear and aligns to a lot of real, significant, ongoing research?

"If the founder had capital and vision" is pretty much tautological. It's true but not particularly useful to know that people who have money and know what to do with it will probably succeed.

Did you read it?

The argument boils down to: this is exactly the same as other times. And provides multiple examples.

"Teach yourself to not judge people for being human."

"Be a more charitable, generous, understanding person."

Anyone making such blatantly judgemental and egotistical comments to a complete stranger has absolutely no idea what is frustrating to people. And is not being anything like a charitable or understanding person.

This makes the remarkable claim that the ontology document is correct no matter what the actual data says! And I suspect legal would have something to say about the ontology defining what a contract is.

It badly needs grounding in some real examples. It reads like pure navel gazing academia, or expensive, gold plated consultancy.

I have never encountered a company that talks about their ontology.

You need the warehouse.

You can benefit from a semantic layer. Optional, but loads of examples in the wild.

Definitions in a semantic layer are absolutely an ontology of sorts. You should avoid working with people who let conceptual purity get in the way of practical results. Concepts and metaphors can guide your work and help with communication; pedantry drags it to a halt.

Treating your ontology as not just a useful concept but an actual product you spend time writing and maintaining? Outside of it being a word you could reasonably apply to tools such as data catalogs, my anecdata is that I have never heard of it in practice.

That's your reaction to a page about photography that has photos of a model, and the photos DON'T feature her breasts? I mean sure, she has them. Many women do!

what's with the weird obsession all over the thread that it is the JUDGE who is the only person at fault here?

That’s a profoundly incorrect misunderstanding of the Citizens United decision, which was to remove restrictions on political spending by corporations.

In other words, by your distinction, the decision was about stacks of cash, not movies.

A case regarding a movie was indeed brought to the court. The court decided to make a far more expansive decision. The movie became a footnote, and has effectively no meaningful relationship to the court’s final decision or its impact.

As for getting lost in a discussion about the difference between an ad and a movie, that’s really going down a rabbit hole of deliberately missing the point completely. Some word play is just too divorced from reality to engage with. There are many very short movies, and any rational person would be able to distinguish them from ads to a high degree of accuracy.

Maybe its obvious but I can't tell it this is an image editor, a React builder, an HTML/CSS designer, ...? What does it make?

Your tone is disagreement, but it's not clear why?

There is an individual who you trust to do good work, and who works well with you. They're not anonymous. Addressing the topic of this thread, you know (or should know) that it is not AI slop.

That is a significant amount of knowledge and trust in an individual, and the very point I thought the GP was making.

This is one of those articles that is too obsessed with amusing itself with its own pretentiousness to communicate anything interesting - which is ironic given the author seems thinks they prefer communications to entertainment.