I think that argument is further hampered (taylor being an exception) by the fact that most pop stars already don't write their own songs. If people like Max Martin can pump out multiple hit songs for multiple groups, it kinda shows that who wrote the song doesn't matter.
Has making music for a living ever not been tough?
> Has making music for a living ever not been tough?
Fair.
> I think that argument is further hampered (taylor being an exception) by the fact that most pop stars already don't write their own songs.
That accounts for the big artists on the radio (yes some people listen to that). But, what about everyone else? I would posit that most artists (the one-hit wonders, the ones without radio success, etc.) write their own songs. It seems like there's such acts who make a go of it just fine, who write their own songs and really nail the connection with fans. I would point to a regional band near me: Mr. Blotto.
No, the crazy graphics has ballooned the cost of games so much that it's hurt the industry. Making a 3d game is hard enough, throwing the additional complexity and intricacies on top of that would make it too expensive to be profitable.
Minecraft and pokemon have famously behind the times graphics and they've done well.
Beat Sabre and Gorilla Tag have done well on VR, and those are hardly crazy graphics.
Instead of Meta buying game companies and never releasing games, they should have bought those companies, seen how their pipelines looked for a successful release, and then developed software that streamlined those releases, making it easier for outside companies to release more and better games.
It's interesting, because 3d graphics are already something that games do very well in 2d.
Is it because the platform is more resource limited, so you have to find a way to squeeze high-quality graphics out of less compute? And I guess I don't know that much about the technology, but I assume they're sending slightly different images to each eye, which probably means they need to generate two pictures instead of one, so that might be a multiplier on the compute to get a given perspective?
I mean Nintendo is pretty well known for squeezing appealing and attractive visuals out of limited hardware, so I can totally see an argument for going for more BOTW/TOTK-style graphics than your CODs or your Gods of War?
> I assume they're sending slightly different images to each eye, which probably means they need to generate two pictures instead of one
Yes, producing two camera views at a time and at pretty high resolution. You can get away with more resolution compromises on a 2D display sitting a couple feet from your eyes versus VR displays hovering just beyond your eyes.
Clearly we just need to make longer VR headsets so that the screen can sit several feet away from your eyes! I see no potential complications or downsides with this plan.
Or wait, even better: scan lines used to allow crts to do more with less. We should really look into using CRT displays for VR headsets
I can't imagine how domestic production can keep up. US manufacturing isn't impossibly far behind China, and now you want to basically double the need, and worse, double the need with low value good like clothes and PCBs? Nobody is going to invest in that.
The president can do whatever they want as long as congress doesn't stop them. And congress...isn't stopping them. Not many lines here to read between.
Exactly. The system of checks and balances, like most things apparently, only works if the people doing the things make it work. And they're refusing to do that.
That's not even close to true, why has hn turned into reddit?
Congress gave the president the power to impose tariffs about 50 years ago because it was too difficult for them to do it themselves without a bunch of horse trading and politics. Congress could in theory pass a new bill taking the power back but they would need a 2/3 majority to overcome Trump's inevitable veto, there simply aren't that many congress people who disagree with Trumps plan to get that to happen.
I really appreciated trustinmenow's reply because it added a lot more context for me as a non-American. If your congress offloaded its ability to control tariffs and now requires a supermajority, that's not the same thing as if it requires a simple majority. The in-depth explanation helped me understand the entire chain of comments.
I think that one of the key differences between HN and Reddit is that I can usually rely on HN to give me a lot more of this kind of context, which helps keep arguments specific and interesting.
We really need models that produce intermediate files. A .blend, a whole godot project, an actual krita/psd file.
Things like this product such cool things....all the way up until you need to move a specific tree half a meter to the left, and then you're either stuck in some prompt/seed hell or have to open an abomination of a file in an editor.
WorldGen supports exporting the generated scene as a vertices colored mesh in .ply format, which you can load into any 3D editor (like Blender). The output is also in metric scale, so you can easily align it with other assets
> As an example if you want diet advice, it can lie to you very convincingly so there is no point in getting advice from it.
How exactly is this different from getting advice from someone who acts confidently knowledgeable? Diet advice is an especially egregious example, since I can have 40 different dieticians give me 72 different diet/meal plans with them saying 100% certainty that this is the correct one.
It's bad enough the AI marketers push AI as some all knowing, correct oracle, but when the anti-ai people use that as the basis for their arguments, it's somehow more annoying.
Trust but verify is still a good rule here, no matter the source, human or otherwise.
If a junior developer lies about something important, they can be fired and you can try to find someone else who wouldn't do the same thing. At the very least you could warn the person not to lie again or they're gone. It's not clear that you can do the same thing with an LLM as they don't know they've lied.
If I ask it how to accomplish a task with the C standard library and it tells me to use a function that doesn't exist in the C standard library, that's not just "wrong" that is a fabrication. It is a lie
If you ask me to remove whitespace from a string in Python and I mistakenly tell you use ".trim()" (the Java method, a mistake I've made annoyingly too much) instead of ".strip()", am I lying to you?
You are correct that there is a difference between lying and making a mistake, however
> Lying requires intent to deceive
LLMs do have an intent to deceive, built in!
They have been built to never admit they don't know an answer, so they will invent answers based on faulty premises
I agree that for a human mixing up ".trim()" and ".strip()" is an honest mistake
In the example I gave you are asking for a function that does not exist. If it invents a function, because it is designed to never say "you are wrong that doesn't exist" or "I don't know the answer" that seems to qualify to me as "intent to deceive" because it is designed to invent something rather than give you a negative sounding answer
Of course it has intent. It was literally designed to never say "I don't know" and to instead give what ever string of words best fits the patter. That's intent. It was designed with the intent to deceive rather than to offer any confidence levels or caveats. That's lying.
It’s more like bullshitting which is inbetween the two. Basically, like that guy who always has some story to tell. He’s not lying as such, he’s just waffling.
In the case of dieticians, investment advisors, and accountants they are usually licensed professionals who face consequences for misconduct. LLMs don’t have malpractice insurance
Good luck getting any of that to happen. All that does is raise the barrier for proof and consequence, because they've got accreditation and "licensing bodies" with their own opaque rules and processes. Accreditation makes it seem like these people are held to some amazing standard with harsh penalties if they don't comply, but really they just add layers of abstraction and places for incompetence, malice and power-tripping to hide.
E.g. Next time a lawyer abandons your civil case and ghosts you after being clearly negligent and down-right bad in their representation. Good luck holding them accountable with any body without consequences.
>E.g. Next time a lawyer abandons your civil case and ghosts you after being clearly negligent and down-right bad in their representation. Good luck holding them accountable with any body without consequences.
Are you talking about a personal experience? I'd think a malpractice claim and the state bar would help you out. Did you even try? Are you just making something up?
OT but funny: I see a YouTube video with a lot of before and after photos where the coach guarantees results in 60 days. It was entirely focused on avoiding stress and strongly advised against caloric restriction. Something like sleeping is many times more important than exercise and exercise is many times more important than diet.
From what I know dieticians don't design exercise plans. (If true) the LLM has better odds to figure it out.
Do people actually behave this way with you? If someone presents a plan confidently without explaining why, I tend to trust them less (even people like doctors, who just happen to start with a very high reputation). In my experience people are very forthcoming with things they don't know.
Someone can present a plan, explain that plan, and be completely wrong.
People are forthcoming with things they know they don't know. It's the stuff that they don't know that they don't know that get them. And also the things they think they know, but are wrong about. This may come as a shock, but people do make mistakes.
And if someone presents a plan, explains that plan, and is completely wrong repeatedly and often, in a way that makes it seem like they don’t even have any concept whatsoever of what they may have done wrong, wouldn’t you start to consider at some point that maybe this person is not a reliable source of information?
I wouldn't have a clue how to verify most things that get thrown around these days. How can I verify climate science? I just have to trust the scientific consensus (and I do). But some people refuse to trust that consensus, and they think that by reading some convincing sounding alternative sources they've verified that the majority view on climate science is wrong.
The same can apply for almost anything. How can I verify dietary studies? Just having the ability to read scientific studies and spot any flaws requires knowledge that only maybe 1 in 10000 people could do, if not worse than that.
Ironic, but keep asking LLMs till you can connect it to your "known truth" knowledge. For many topics I spend ~15-60 mins on various topics asking for details, questioning any contradictory answers, verifying assumptions to get what feels right answer. I talked with them for topics varying from democracy-economy, irrational number proofs and understanding rainbows.
There was something similar, yeah. This feels a bit more refined though. There even was an android keyboard in this vein, except you kept circling around to get to different letters.
I think there's an implied "and not expect a response" there.
If you insult unhinged people (and people who kill over a mere 'offense' to their religion are unhinged), don't be surprised when you receive an unhinged response back.
So we should all be chilled and silent, because there are unhinged people who might retaliate far out of proportion to anything we might do or say? That's no way to live.
Has making music for a living ever not been tough?
reply