bobxmax

Yes... Biden's presidency objectively wasn't bad, but the way it was messaged and the optics he gave off were just impossible to recover from.

There were hit songs about what a big moment it is that he was black. At least among minorities that was a massive deal. If you didn't see that, I think you're probably closer to those white southerners than you might think you are.

Can you imagine if mainstream entertainers made songs celebrating having a white president?

The social justice age wasn't a rejection of bigotry. It was a Mccarthy-esque movement of dividing everybody between sexual and racial lines into a hierarchy of who was and wasn't allowed to speak. Speaking against the party line meant exile.

The SJW/Wokeism movement had nothing to do with true equity and "rejection of bigotry". That's why there was such a revolt against it.

This wasn't because of racism. This belief is why the left keeps losing to him... a total misunderstanding of what brought him into power.

Some of the earliest figureheads of the so-called "alt right" movement were homosexuals and racial minorities

Trump's win was a revolt against the social justice age. His win was a revolt against emergent phenomenon like "cancel culture".

That's your opinion though. Obviously lots of people disagree.

Kamala lost because of Biden, who somehow was even less likeable than Hillary by the end.

Yeah I mean to be clear, I think Obama was a remarkable leader and it's hard to believe he once occupied the same seat DJT does today

He didn't explicitly use his race (the way Hillary often used her gender), but many who campaigned for him and large parts of his caucuses did. For better or for worse.

You can't claim that while claiming wanting to elect a black president wasn't a big driver in much of the turnout for Obama. There were multiple musicians literally making songs about finally being able to elect a black president.

Hillary and Kamala got boosts from being a woman. They just had a massive drop because of, especially in Hillary's case, being deeply unlikeable.

Kamala probably wins in 2016.

Can you clarify what Trump's 2016 had to do with race

That's naive and you know it. A massive drive for him was electing the first black president. A less, but still not-insignificant drive was for Hillary as the first female president.

Thanks - I didn't think of using an LLM to debug the json, that's smart. I'll give it another shot.

Agreed. I think it also doesn't help that the AI companies are saying "well they will just get new jobs"

Do you know any resources for getting started with ComfyUI? Last time I looked into these tools ages ago it was a complex mess

This is just shifting the goal posts though. I remember people making similar arguments in the early days of Photoshop, digital camera (and what constitutes a "real" photographer), CGI, etc.

I agree the magnitude of the step change is upsetting, though.

Wasn't Stability working on open sourced models? I wonder what happened to them, I remember some issues with their founder

I've never understood this argument... most of Hollywood today is already slop lol

I don't know how they verify it, but the article claims the model mentioned ("Moonvalley") trained an entirely clean/licensed data model.

> Wirecutter was bad before the NYT acquisition

How so?

If I need something I usually just buy what Wirecutters recommends and I'm rarely disappointed.

Wirecutters is a long-running very trusted publication. It's not a random rag.

ChatGPT came out 2 years ago. The fact you think you're going to see rapid changes this quickly is ridiculous.

Your wife's anecdotal info is a meaningless datapoint.

Of course they're going to lose their job. ChatGPT is already replacing a bunch of requests that would otherwise be at a walk-in clinic. AI is being shown to be a better diagnostician in many cases than physicians. AI is rapidly reducing the need for radiologists.

You think in 20 years you have more doctors than today? Please.

I always find it funny that people are up in arms about artists supposedly losing their jobs, but have no problems with doctors losing their jobs to AI advancements.

Replace the people who actually contribute to society and no issues, but god forbid the pixel artist can't get paid to doodle anymore.

No, it's not. Arrogant developers on HN like to parrot this, but it isn't true.

The power of LLMs are the emergent properties that have emerged which weren't specifically taught to the model. That is not a property that exists in statistical, largely more deterministic models.

If you think it's just a giant token prediction machine you've just ignored the last 5 years.

How do you know?

> If you define a grammar for a new programming language and feed it to an LLM and give it NO EXAMPLES can it write code in your language?

Of course it can. It will experiment and learn just like humans do.

Hacker news people still think LLMs are just some statistical model guessing things.

I don't think you know what Madoff did.

No, dot com companies were famous for soaring valuations that WEREN'T revenue generating. Learn your history.

We've seen multiple companies in the last twelve months blast past any past benchmark of fastest growing company ever. It's become pedestrian for some of these companies to scale to $10m ARR in a quarter which has never happened before.

"Genuine user interest doesn't come close to justifying their insane valuations" - classic HN copium