rewgs

I'm a lifelong musician, went to music school to study jazz and orchestration, was a professional film composer for 15 years prior to pivoting to programming. I've read quite a few books on the intersection of math and music.

And not once have I ever felt that these so-called intersections were anything other than contrived.

Of course we can interface with music from a mathematical perspective, but that doesn't mean that we should or that there's anything particularly illuminating to gleen from doing so.

Beyond the very basic math (honestly even that's perhaps too strong a word -- just because something is expressed in numbers doesn't make it _math_) of time signatures and some harmonic concepts up to maybe some of Slonimsky's work, doing so is IMO a fool's errand that exists only to fill space on a TEDx stage.

Holy shit, a wild Everett Bogue sighting. I read your blog way back. Hope you’re doing well!

But here's the thing: learning Android dev is nothing like "learning" to use an LLM.

Obviously there are tons of tools and systems building up around LLMs, and I don't intend to minimize that, but at the end of the day, an LLM is more analogous to a tool such as an IDE than a programming language. And I've never seen a job posting that dictated one must have X number of years in Y IDE; if they exist, they're rare, and it's hardly a massive hill to climb.

Sure, there's a continuum with regards to the difficulty of picking up a tool, e.g. learning a new editor is probably easier than learning, say, git. But learning git still has nothing on learning a whole tech stack.

I was very against LLM-assisted programming, but over time my position has softened, and Claude Code has become a regular part of my workflow. I've begun expanding out into the ancilary tools that interact with LLMs, and it's...not at all difficult to pick up. It's nothing like, say, learning iOS development. It's more like learning how to configure Neovim.

In fact, isn't this precisely one of the primary value propositions of LLMs -- that non-technical people can pick up these tools with ease and start doing technical work that they don't understand? If non-technical folks can pick up Claude Code, why would it be even _kind_ of difficult for a developer to?

So, I'm with the post author here: what is there to get left behind _from_?

PCIe cards would indeed be useless for AI unless Apple supports third-party GPUs, but there are certainly some pro creators that would still prefer to have them. I myself work in large-template film/game scoring and while we all love our Mac Studios, they're usually housed in a Sonnet chassis so that we can continue to use PCIe cards. Had Apple kept them in parity with the Studio w/r/t CPU and RAM, the rack-mount version of the Pro would've been a no-brainer.

My theory is that they're going to release a new Mac Pro that's about half the size of the current one. Enough space for some PCIe slots, but otherwise smaller given the enormous amount of wasted space in that thing since moving from Intel to Apple Silicon. Guessing the rack-mount model, should they continue selling it, will be 3 or 4u instead of 5u.

I know everyone thinks they're going to just kill it, but I don't see it. Apple's move under Tim Cook has been to exhaust supplies (see: filling the Intel Mac Pro chassis with air and not updating the CPU), letting people predict its death (see: 2013 -> 2019 Mac Pro silence), and then redesigning it into something people want while utilizing it as an opportunity to segment specs across their SKUs.

The Studio will remain the high-powered creator machine, whereas the Mac Pro will be retooled into an AI beast.

I'm selling one! Email in profile, get in touch.

The article specifically talks about B2B and MDM-like features. The "average consumer" isn't the point here -- rather, governments, defense, high-security corporations, etc.

I always try and keep in mind that we typically think of software as having three versions -- alpha, beta, and release -- but for it's considered even kind of "finished."

In my own work, this often looks like writing the quick and dirty version (alpha), then polishing it (beta), then rewrite it from scratch with all the knowledge you gained along the way.

The trick is to not get caught up on the beta. It's all too tempting to chase perfection too early.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but it absolutely is. The pro-Suno vs anti-Suno discussions are just as heated as those in programming.

I'm so tired of this kind of design -- that basic dev tool splash page/Tailwind-y/Shadcdn UI thing that's just seemingly everywhere nowadays. It's so basic and tired, like Material Design without any of the little bits of personality that make it decent.

Give me some life and color and personality, damn it.

We are very similar, you and I, and I'm completely with you on all of this.

I don't see enough people talking about this side of things. Couldn't agree more.

Fully disagree. First, I question the value of something merely enduring. But that aside, implicit in what you're saying here is that the "skill of the swing," so to speak, doesn't matter, whereas only the quantity of swings is what matters. Baseball players clearly negate this.

Yup. "The downfall of society begins with the individual."

https://x.com/lillybilly299/status/1865133434839990601

I'm with you. I've said it before, but: LLMs have made clear who does things for the process, and who does things for the result (obviously this is a spectrum, hardly anyone is 100% on either end).

The amount of people who apparently just want the end result and don't care about the process at all has really surprised me. And it makes me unfathomably sad, because (extremely long story short) a lot of my growth in life can be summed up as "learning to love the process" -- staying present, caring about the details, enjoying the journey, etc. I'm convinced that all that is essential to truly loving one's own life, and it hurts and scares me to both know just how common the opposite mindset is and to feel pressured to let go of such a huge part of my identity and dare-I-say soul just to remain "competitive."

Oops, thought it was public but I guess it wasn't. Now it is!

I'm a former film/game composer turned programmer, and you basically just outlined what I hope to be my life's work :p Each and every one of these is a white whale for me, and is something I'm working on in one way or another.

Get in touch if you'd like to chat more about this stuff (my email is in my profile).

I'm back in the midwest visiting my family for the holidays and you couldn't be more right.

It's shocking how quickly my family normalized consuming obvious AI slop short-form videos, one after the other, for hours. It's horrifying.

So it's...cloud servers? What am I missing here?

To expand on this:

LLMs are indeed currently an iterative improvement. I've found a few good use-cases for them. They're not nothing.

But at the moment, they are nowhere near the "massive productivity multiplier" they're advertised to be. Just as adding more lanes doesn't make traffic any better, perhaps they never will.

Or perhaps all the promises will come true -- and that, of course, is what is actually meant when the productivity gains are screamed from the rooftops. It was the same with computers, and it was the same with the internet: the proposed massive changes were going to come at some vague point in the future. Plenty of people saw those changes coming even decades in advance; reason from first principles and extrapolate the results of x scale and y investment and you couldn't not see where it was headed, at least generally.

The future potential is being sold in much the same way here. That'd be all fine and good except for the fact that the capex required to bring this potential future into being compared to any conceivable revenue model is so completely absurd that, even putting aside the disruptive-at-best nature of the technology, making up for the literal trillions of dollars of investment will have to twist our economic model to the point of breaking in order to make the math math. Add in the fact that this technology is tailor-made to not just disrupt or transform our jobs but to replace workers should this future potential arrive, and suddenly it looks nothing like computers in the 70s or networks in the 80s. It's not wonder not everyone is excited about it -- the dynamic is, at its very core, adversarial; its very existence states the quiet part of class warfare out loud.

Which brings us to so many people being forced to use it. I really, really hate this. Just as I don't want to be told which editor/IDE to use, I don't want to be told how to program. I deeply care about and understand my workflow quite well, thank you very much -- I've been diligently working on refining it for a good while now. And to state the obvious: if it were as good as they say it is, I'd be using it the way they want me to. I don't, because they just aren't that good (thankfully I have a choice in this matter -- for now). I also just don't like using them while programming, as I find them noisy and oddly extraverting, which tires me out. They are antithetical to flow. No one ever got into a flow state while pair programming, or managing a junior developer, and I doubt anyone ever got into a flow state while chatting with an LLM. It's just the wrong interface. The "better autocomplete" model is a better interface, but in practice I just haven't seen it do better than a good LSP or my own brain. At best it saves me a few key strokes, which I'd hardly call revolutionary. Again, not nothing, but far from the promise. We're still a very long way off.

To get there, LLM developers need cash, and they need data. Companies are forcing LLMs into every nook and cranny of so many employees' workflows so that they can provide training data, and bring that potential future one step closer to reality. The more we use LLMs, the more likely we are to being replaced. Simple as that.

I for one would welcome our new robot overlords if I had any faith that our society could navigate this disruption with grace and humanity. I'd be ecstatic and totally bullish on the tech if I felt it were ushering in a Star Trek-like future. But, ha, nope -- any faith I had in that sort of response died with how so many handled Covid, and especially when Trump was elected for a second time. These two events destroyed my estimation of humanity as a cooperative organism.

No, I now expect humanity at large -- or at least the USA -- to look at the stupidest, most short-sighted, meanest option possible and enthusiastically say "let's do that!" Which, coincidentally, is another way of describing what is currently happening with LLMs: the act of forcing mediocre tools down our throats while cynically exploiting our "language = intelligence" psychological blind-spot, raising utilities prices (how is a company's electric bill my problem again?), killing personal computing, accelerating climate change at the worst possible time, all in the name of destroying both my vocation and avocation.

Of course it's plagiarized. Perhaps not directly from the CAD software in question, but when you use an LLM, you are by definition plagiarizing by way of the data it was trained on.

> China experimented with having no enforced Intellectual Property laws, and the result was that they were able to do the same technological advancement it took the West 250 years to do and surpass them in four decades.

Are you seriously ignoring the fact that China wasn't developing new technology, but rather utilizing already-existing technology? Of course it took 6x less time!

Not at all. It can grab git repos (as well as work with other VCSs). There's just a lot of stuff on GitHub, hence your impression.

I felt this way as well until very recently. Because Ruby actually commits to the whole "everything is an object" bit in an exceptionally clean way, it does duck typing extremely well -- if you squint, the fact that an object's methods define its type sorta-kinda means that you're working with interfaces (in the Go sense of the term).

Of course RBS makes this more explicit/verbose (in a good way), and ruby-lsp helps bring it all together in the editor.

I feel like I'm missing nothing compared to Python with type hints and pyright. Of course neither compare to an actually typed language at runtime, but at least as far as developer experience, it's pretty alright. I'm relatively new to Ruby but I went from really hating it to being pretty much fine with it for these reasons.

Technical:

Audio programming with C++. I was a professional film/game composer for the first 10+ years of my career, but when I started programming I was mostly interested in solving problems that required web and infrastructure skills. Also, I always looked at C++ as something to tackle once I was a better programmer -- I now think I'm a pretty okay programmer and am ready to take it on. I'd like to eventually do a deep dive into Rust as well, but I'm focusing on C++ first, as the vast majority of audio programming is still done in C++ and likely will be for the foreseeable future, and I think learning Rust will be more valuable once I've run into many of the pain points that it addresses.

Non-technical:

Improve my archery. I started this year and love it.

...and battery life that is nowhere near a Mac. And consistently shit speakers.

I'm sorry but if you can't see that a $1,000 Acer doesn't compare to a Mac by any conceivable hardware metric then we don't have much to talk about.

Putting aside anything specific to Framework, this article really puts into perspective just how piss poor the laptop market is right now.

Macs have fantastic hardware, but of course only really run macOS. The future of Asahi Linux is very questionable and, like the author, is not something I'm interested in relying on. I don't hate macOS by any means but I much prefer running Arch with Hyprland.

PC laptop hardware is just shit in comparison. Like the author, my X1 Carbon (Gen 11) has keys that intermittently fail, and the cooling is pretty bad (I actually love the OLED display, though, and don't really understand the author's concerns here).

I haven't found any non-Mac laptops that beat the X1 Carbon line, though (relatively low bar that it is). Frameworks are cool if you are fine with the tradeoffs, but personally I'm just not -- I much prefer to tinker with desktops/servers, and am totally fine with laptops being a physically-closed "appliance," as long as that results in great battery life, cooling, and adequate performance (I can always offload heavy tasks to my desktop if need be).

Which is all to say: what I want is Mac equivalent hardware that can reliably run Linux.

For now, I've landed on using my extremely beefy Arch desktop when at home, and my M1 MacBook Air (which is still running great 5 years on) when mobile. Even accepting that I'll be using an Apple device when mobile, though, there's still room for improvement in this setup: I'd love LTE support (no, a hot spot isn't a good replacement), a nano-texture display (which appears to be locked to the MacBook Pro line), and either an even smaller footprint (like the old 12-inch MacBook) or a little bit of active cooling to offset the performance regressions in macOS. An iPad might make sense, but I own one and frankly hate it due to OS limitations, such as only a single stream of audio at a time (which causes lots of bugs -- watching a YouTube video while scrolling Reddit will cause the YouTube video to pause whenever you scroll past a video on Reddit, even if it's muted), a lack of terminal, etc. I want a "real" OS, so tablets are out of the question entirely.

I don't understand why absolutely zero PC manufacturers have even tried to take on Apple's laptop offerings. Sure, Apple Silicon is great, but Intel and AMD have done an admirable job at increasing battery efficiency since its release; it's not the only component that makes Mac laptops so great. I'm sure these manufacturers know what they're doing in this regard and have decided it doesn't make business sense to take on Apple. But man, I just wish someone would at least try.

> Their current "system" is Excel.

> The bottleneck is still knowing what to build, not building.

I'd amend this to "the bottleneck is being _interested_ in building."

The piece that is _constantly_ missing from AI discourse is that no amount of "breaking down barriers" will result in people who aren't interested in building, building.

I really think that it's as simple as that. Most either don't have the wherewithal or the interest to try and build something beyond the tools that are currently at their disposal -- they're just trying to complete a task, not build the tool that enables them to complete the task; the few that do become programmers. Thus, you have untold instances where "their 'system' is Excel," and programmers selling them solutions to replace it.

It's not intelligence, it's not knowledge, it's not even really aptitude. It's interest.

Another example of this is the reaction to more "creativity-focused" AI models: you see people acting like they've been gate-kept by having to know _how_ to do a thing in order to _do_ a thing, which is somehow this great injustice and AI has finally leveled the playing field so they can finally show those snooty artists who's boss (this attitude is _all over_ places like /r/aiwars). But the reality is that these people simply are not interested enough in music/photography/whatever to learn it, and will largely remain uninterested in the field once this moment is normalized and we get used to the new position of the goalposts. They don't like _creating_, they like _having created_ and whatever social cache they mistakenly believe comes with it (which explains their near-hatred of artists -- they are, very simply, jealous).

These dynamics also explain why no-code tools don't seem to ever stick. Building something requires that the person doing the building be interested in building, but people who are interested in building will have already learned to build in some form or fashion, or at least can easily see the shortcomings with tools that ultimately take away their agency to build and/or their participation in the process (which, for many -- including myself -- is kind of the whole point: I love the process!)

</rant>

Google Docs is not the comparison here. Google Workspace is.

I'm with you. The fact that Apple isn't yet pushing AI in everything is a feature for me.