Is that true though? I don't think the median population member spoke in this way in the 1800s. Obviously in 2026 we have a massive written record of the popular speech patterns of the entire spectrum of society, but that's down to the internet more than anything.
Seems like some of the initial changes are reflecting more than just the evolving language. He’s comparing someone using informal slang “not gonna lie” against someone writing extremely formally “Hunger, that great leveller, makes philosophers of us all, and renders even the meanest dish agreeable.” which I’m not sure makes sense.
There's going to be a long tail of domain-specific tasks that aren't well served by current models for the foreseeable future, but there's also no question the complexity horizon of the SotA models is increasing over time. I've had decent results recently with non-trivial Cuda/MPS code. Is it great code/finely tuned? Probably not but it delivered on the spec and runs fast enough.
The problem with this is that people are particularly bad at judging their own 'independence' of thought, regardless of their political views.
I would say the opposite of partisan would be someone who actively seeks to understand and relate to the views of those who they disagree with, or who are from their out-group. This would also imply independence of thought.
I used to worry about recall but eventually realised I made more and more interesting music when I treated my gear like a regular musical instrument and just recorded myself playing to audio. Perfect recall put me in a brain loop of endless tweaking that didn’t actually benefit the music at all, it would all just end up sounding overthought. Plus I had more fun doing it. This was a bit of a revelation for me. Obviously, whatever works for you works for you, but just a counterpoint.
I think this is a reasonable article and I do understand the perspective. It's a normal sentiment from those witnessing a craft that they have invested time in mastering become partially automated. However obviously the big picture (as the article alludes to) is that none of us are paid to write software, we're paid to solve problems as efficiently as possible and these tools, used wisely, can massively help with that.
Contrast is worse, it's a trade off. For me in most environments there will be bright reflections on the glossy screens, even indoors - your brain actually does a good job of ignoring them to the point you're not even conciously aware most of the time, but when you smear them out with the nano texture display it's just way more comfortable to look at, for me at least.
If I was focused on watching movies, or grading photos in a dark room then glossy would be the way to go.
Yeah, while I mostly agree with the sentiment, I don't actually recognise any of the behaviours described in this article. It does sound like the behavioural traits of a certain subsection of certain generations, who's expectations and norms have been warped by overuse of social media. It all sounds incredibly exhausting and I genuinely feel sorry for those growing up in this climate.
I think that goes everywhere though, I’ve been to at least one of every type of party described in this discussion thread in the last year and I’m not American.
Sure, and I’ve seen the same. But I’ve also seen the amount to which they do that decrease rapidly over time, so if that trend continues would your opinion change?
I don’t think there’s any point in comparing to human intelligence when assessing machine intelligence, there’s zero reason to think it would have similar qualities. It’s quite clear for the foreseeable future it will be far below human intelligence in many areas, while already exceeding humans in some areas that we regard as signs of intelligence.
You're getting to the heart of the problem here. At what point in evolutionary history does "thinking" exist in biological machines? Is a jumping spider "thinking"? What about consciousness?
When we say "think" in this context, do we just mean generalize? LLMs clearly generalize (you can give one a problem that is not exactly in it's training data and it can solve it), but perhaps not to the extent a human can. But then we're talking about degrees. If it was able to generalize at a higher level of abstraction maybe more people would regard it as "thinking".
I don’t think this is a specific cultural thing, in my experience some people host more curated gathering, some more relaxed and informal - doesn’t matter where you’re from. People just tend to think the way their social group does it is the ‘norm’.
Yeah personally I don't give a toss about the person who created the music and their backstory or stage performance.
However I do care that the person who created the music made hundreds of micro decisions during the creation of the piece such that it is coherent, has personality and structure towards the goal of satisfying that individuals sense of aesthetics. Unsurprisingly this is not something you get from current AI generated music.
What I've tend to find is that although almost everyone listens to some form of music, the average person tends to like things which are squarely in the middle of the gaussian curve, and that are inherently very predictable as though the creator had chosen the most stastically likely outcome for every creative decision they made while creating it. Similar trends with almost anything creative, cinema, literature, food etc.
This is basically what all the Suno creations sound like to me, which is to say they definitely have a market, but that market isn't for people who have a more than average interest in music.
It may be reductive but that doesn't make it incorrect. I would certainly agree that creating and appreciating art are highly emergent phenomena in humans (as is for example humour) but that doesn't mean I don't think they're rooted in fitness functions and our evolved brains desire for approval from our tribal peer group.
Reductive arguments may not give us an immediate forward path to reproducing these emergent phenomena in artificial brains, but it's also the case that emergent phenomena are by definition impossible to predict - I don't think anyone predicted the current behaviours of LLMs for example.
I think the ‘out of the box’ Linux desktop experience has improved a lot. To me the difference is in the long tail of software. On Linux the variety of toolkits historically available means depending on what software you’re using you may encounter a lot of inconsistency- I certainly do. On the Mac far less so.
Sure, I just think it's important to be precise about the language, and this type of distinction is important in a lot of other aspects of life. Generally if an image is intended to evoke a sexual response, we would classify it as pornographic (though not always). An image that wasn't intended to evoke that response may still do so, but that will be context and viewer dependent.
I don't think an image can be defined as sexual based on whether or not it produces an arousal response in you or anyone else. If you looked an image featuring women who are from a culture where partial nudity is normal and not considered sexual, but you have an arousal response, does that make the image sexual?
Tangental but it's interesting to read Kaczynski's bio after listening to a podcast about the Zizian cult over the weekend, some very clear parallels in personality type.
Yes, it seems like LLMs are system one thinking taken to the extreme. Reasoning was supposed to introduce some actual logic but you only have to play with these models for a short while to see that the reasoning tokens are a very soft constraint on the models eventual output.
Infact, they're trained to please us and so in general aren't very good at pushing back. It's incredibly easy to 'beat' an LLM in an argument since they often just follow your line of reasoning (it's in the models context after all).
I'm not sure download stats are hugely relevant because that would imply the needs of every person that downloads Blender are weighted equivalently which would make little sense.
Or are you suggesting the Blender foundation has no interest in getting wider adoption among film and animation studios?
Indeed but this is a discussion about Blender and you posted originally:
> Making a feature platform specific to a negligible fraction of the users is inefficient, as many applications will never be ported to Linux platforms.
All the large studios use Linux, that's why all the third party software that is used in feature animation and vfx is supported on Linux. So I'm just saying 'negligible fraction of users' in the case of Blender (which as a project would like to increase adoption in professional feature animation and vfx) isn't really true.