delegate

We easily adapt and block out stuff we don't want to see. In big cities we do this automatically - we don't even notice the dirt, parked cars, litter, people.. unless we consciously focus on them. I guess it is the same with ads, they lose their power as we adapt to them.

The solution is to force ads upon you and hope that you accidentally click on one due to sensory overload. Or more ads.

I have stopped even clicking on their launch links.. it's always something that's not available right now or 'not yet available in your country'..

Anyone can promise the moon in the future.

I actually thought it sounds really good and natural and it freaked me out in a good way. You can tell that the robots have no idea of what they're talking about, but the voicing, the emotions, etc, really good.. Like talking to a friend on the phone. Also creepy, because of the potential for abuse of this technology.

But the interesting part to me is that training on voice only is what allows models to learn emotions - voice transmits a lot of emotional information which text doesn't capture. Language has words for a very limited number of emotions - maybe only the peaks - but there's so many more which we can't describe or transmit via text.

You could determine the phonetic tokens which express different kinds of emotions or 'render' text+emotion using a DSL, etc. Exciting stuff.

jank is Clojure, but instead of the JVM it embeds Clang and LLVM, so it can understand C++ headers directly and call C++ with no bindings. Other LLVM languages (Rust, Swift, Zig, etc) are reachable the usual way, through the C ABI.

From the TFA:

Templates, virtual functions, exceptions, overload resolution, and RAII all just work in jank. No boilerplate necessary. Just include your headers and go! jank can include any C++ source, link to any C or C++ library, and it uses the C++ type system. jank even compiles to C++!

I'm amazed by such questions, really.

This was true with gpt-3.5, but things have moved on, dude !

It's like asking 'do movies have sound now?'. The answer is Yes, not just sound, but also color !

I think the parent post meant that it's very good at writing code and operating the computer. I think we're also biased because we've used older generation models and the latest ones are orders of magnitude better than what we had 6 months ago.

For example, for your legal work, it can:

Develop a machine learning model (CRF, running on CPU) for clause extraction from scratch, Find training documents and training data and train the model for various provisions (you might help it here by pointing it to the directory with annotated documents),

Build an app where you upload your legal documents and it extracts the provisions you want from all documents.

Integrate semantic search and an AI agent into your app which lets it answer any question about your documents with exact evidence from the documents.

All of this from one well crafted prompt, a few skills and a workflow. It could probably complete this in one night, while you sleep.

Or you can point it to your saas of choice and tell it - 'create me a copy of this app'.

All you need to know is how to steer it through the planning/research phase.

So it's not that it's 'accurate' in legal terms, it's that it can build you any tool you want from scratch so that you can become more accurate.

You get used to it after a while and at some point the parenthesis 'disappear' and stop taking up mental cycles.

I often thought about this - at first I struggled a lot and wasted so much time trying to match parens, but after some time my brain adapted and then I actually liked the syntax, especially if your editor supports selecting forms or you use something like parinfer, which matches parens based on indentation.

Clojure has special syntax for collections of various types, so it's even easier to parse after you get used to it imo.

For me, the bigger challenge was wrapping my head around functional programming using immutable data structures, since that wasn't just syntax, it required me to 'unlearn' thinking in OO paradigm and adopting a new way of thinking about how the program works. You get used to that too after a while.

I sometimes look at it via the metaphor of music.

Playing an instrument vs electronic/computer music.

We do forget skills we don't practice, especially fine motor skills (like playing the guitar or typing code).

There's inherent pleasure in playing a musical instrument - practicing improves fine motor skills and produces satisfaction.

You can play for yourself and that can be a great experience.

Often people create music for other listeners - and now the satisfaction comes not just from your skill, but from how the music impacts your listeners.

They say you can put more of your 'soul' into music made with an instrument, but I'd say there's quite a bit of electronic music with just as much soul.

People who create electronic music don't generate any of those sounds with their fine motor skills, but they do have a plan about how the song progresses and what emotional state it elicits in users.

That's why you have DJs which are more popular than others.

If you stop playing the guitar for a year, then pick it up and try playing something, you will feel very rusty. But give it a week of practice and most of your skill comes back.. and in 1 month you're back to your peak skill.

I guess my point is - If you go full on agentic, you'll loose some of your coding skill, but you can get it back fairly quickly if you go back to manual coding. On the flip side, you get better at using AI if you use it, so your thinking is at a higher level, but you give up understanding the low level details of how exactly the code works.

Either way you're making 'music', albeit a different kind of music.

Here we go again..

Tell me a story of when a service introduced ads and that ended up being a great thing for users ? Because I don't know any. Instead I know many stories where ads poisoned and destroyed the service and turned the Internet into a shit show.

Oh, but in this case, dystopia is highly unlikely, right ?

BitTorrent: 0% increase. Just saying.

This. The world has no political and economic frameworks to face AGI and robotics.

What democracy when the AGI is smarter and more aware of the big picture then all the 'demos' (people) combined ?

It would only make sense to hand over the rule to the AGI, which we are already hard at work doing btw.

The techno utopia - AGI + robots can lead to a form of communism.. with human life having very little value.

Or it could lead to the other extreme.. whatever that is, again human life having little practical value.

We need a new type of political and economic thinking, radically different from the left/right/socialist/capitalist ideologies..

Interestingly how everyone is talking about 'Google', this faceless entity.. but in essence there are humans who work there, employees not doing their job properly. Lazy, detached, disinterested .. with no consequences for coasting.. Or are badly organized/managed, have the wrong incentives, are burned out, going through a divorce, performance review, whatever..

People are people, life happens, job happens, but unfortunately some of these roles have real external impacts on other people. One demotivated employee at a Google* can radiate their unhappiness onto great number of others because of the circumstantial power they have at their disposal.

At the very least they could copy & paste the exact reason for the ban, but no, they'll drag people through mud and automated replies, etc.

Of course I don't have a right to Twitter.

But I do have the right to the public information posted by people who intend it to be public information.

They're not posting 'on X', they're posting to the public and the only reason they do it on X is because there are no alternatives due to the network effect intrinsic for such services.

The 'network effect' part needs to be defined and taken into account by regulators and then regulate the companies such that they make the information available to the public if the poster intends so.

Why have we let X (et al) have total control over the content posted by the users ?

Why do the users agree to the limits imposed by them and let the platform decide who gets to see the content they posted ?

Because they're offering the infrastructure. The tech for such a network is now within reach of many, but these apps are heavily dominated by network effects and that makes it impossible for competing apps to take hold.

This is negative for society.

Firefighters who deal with forest fires, police, governments, rescue services (here in Spain) are all posting their updates on X - because, like the users, they have no choice, because no alternative exists.

People who don't have an account are not getting vital information because the company decided to restrict access to the entire network.

This needs to be regulated somehow. At least for public services and major news outlets - as a tax for the network effect these apps benefit from.