guitarlimeo

I think rich people are good for the society, but ultrarich are a symptom of a broken system. The scale is absurd, no man should have that amount of wealth.

Everyone always wants to compare this revolution to the Industrial Revolution but there's a saying "history doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes". There are similarities, and reading how people coped back then can be helpful, but also this is a completely different revolution!

The only themes that rhyme imo are the loss of power to a smaller subset of humans (owners) and technological advancement enabling us to produce more (not necessarily better quality) with smaller costs. But people think that the history will repeat itself, and Jevons paradox will hold true, because it held in the Industrial Revolution; quote from the article: "Eventually, everything should be fine. The technology will be more powerful, and the job will still be there, it’ll just look different."

In this revolution, what if instead of being the human that invented the steam engine, we are the horses? "What happened to all the horses replaced by machines after industrialization? Humans keep a few around for entertainment but that’s about it." [1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50147755

This is a guess (correct me if I'm wrong) but probably you valued the mastery of a skill to create, and now the mastery is worthless as anyone can create anything, be it music, art or software if they just have access to latest AI?

Alert me when these "world models" can make a video of a skateboarding line that fools a skateboarder.

And no, this didn't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2K_OLiZ_RM

This could be a good article but the example doesn't work?

"The CI tool was flagging an issue, perhaps correct, perhaps incorrect. But this is a real system so I had to dive in."

By diving in he ultimately just uses the AI to fix the problem:

"So I told Codex to make SonarQube happy, which it did by refactoring and splitting things up into 10 files".

Why isn't there a "shallowbot", or some CI configuration that tries to fix CI mistakes once before humans dive in? Plus it's not that deep, it's just shit code that was fixable with a "make sonarqube happy" prompt. I think the author is ashamed to admit that he's as generalist as everyone else now.

I have come to terms with code being replaced by AI, even though some of it could be described as art created by a skilled artist (see: Animal Well). Most of it has utility first and foremost, and should be secure from attacks and optimized. If AI can do those things better than humans, then commercial software should move to that direction to be better utilized.

I do not share the same sentiment regarding drawn art or music and will try my best to support artists who don't need AI to perform/create. Modern music production already is using AI to its fullest extent for sure, its their loss. I've never listened much pop and instead have always tried to support people who actually have more skills in their toolset than just writing lyrics. My most listened genres atm include jazz, psychedelic rock and metal.

> For the Nick Hustles track that I shared, you cannot tell.

I accept that the future is bleak and there will be many cases where I won't know until someone points it out. It has happened a couple of times already. Always a big disappointment, then I shrug it off and go back to artists I know. I'm not alone in feeling this disappointment. [1]

> Many critics were quick and loud to say the users were no longer "real artists". Really, those critics have been left in the dust. In modern music production, vocoders are now commonplace.

How is this an apt analogy? Yes, those critics are better left in the dust, a signal modifier (vocoder) is just a signal modifier. Suno creates whole songs, skipping all the skills needed to even be a musician. Are you seriously comparing the two?

Also if that analogy worked, this "gotcha" doesn't really work for me as I never haven't really liked modern music production where playback is more and more common live. Multiple times I've thought of organizing a "live-only" festival where only simple setups are allowed to allow artists to show how skilled they really are, but I've realized that 1) most pop artists won't go there to show their lack of skills 2) jazz festivals exist for already skilled musicians.

I personally think there will be some "no AI used" label for artists, much like there is for organic food, and people like me who value human skills & craftmanship and want to support that kinda lifestyle can use that labeling when making purchases. Much in the similar fashion as with organic label nowadays I predict it will be gamed, there will be disappointments, but it will on a longer run be better than not having anything like that. It is to make a statement, it is to support local, smaller artists and reject the norm.

[1] https://business.columbia.edu/insights/digital-future/why-ai...

> It's a subthread where commentary about the IPO was assumed to be a joke.

No it isn't, it's just about the absurdity of that statement vs. their usual marketing bullshit and what they actually deliver.

No it isn't to me. It's infinitely more valuable to me even if its sold at $0.01 as AI to me is $0.

It is, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50244855

This is exactly what I meant. Weird that you're being downvoted.

Not GP but the value of AI music to me is $0. It had its one time novelty moments ("look what AI can do") and can fill the background as any $0 muzak before could. But as anyone, me included can generate songs like that infinite times makes it so common it's lame. There's no scarcity of AI songs, why should I be impressed with any that come up?

Plus it seems Suno still hasn't managed to figure the static noise creeping up as the song goes on (compare the sound of the hi-hats at the start vs. the end)

They must be joking with this part:

"Before starting the IPO process, we spoke to many business leaders who had gone through a similar process in the past. One piece of advice, which we heard in slightly different forms from multiple people, stuck with us: never let your company be worth a dollar more than it is actually worth. What they meant is that it is very dangerous when people buy your company's stock based on expectations you cannot fulfill or on incorrect predictions about how you will behave. This is in fact very similar to one of Anthropic's guiding principles: underpromise and overdeliver."