throw646577

That too I guess. And it sets a few cookies.

I don't mean to suggest that this particular toy is much use. I just mean you should not give random internet games standardised samples of your voice, for this reason.

It's a standardised sample, already correlated to text, close to the microphone, for one thing. You're just making it easier for them.

I mean I suppose you can use "like and subscribe", "without further ado", and "let's get started" as standardised samples if you want to catch a youtuber.

But AFAIK my voice isn't on the internet anywhere. Quite a lot of people are not.

There's a number of ways this information can be connected back, with varying precision, to the person who recorded it.

And we should have learned from the Cambridge Analytica scandal that data is used in ways we do not expect. For example, what if you don't care to reproduce someone's voice, but you do care to extract age/gender/racial background/sexual orientation from it?

Congratulations: you gave someone a standardised sample of your voice they can use in a programmatic scam.

Don't do this.

> If it's dark genius then why doesn't it work for folks like Eric Adams or even other MAGA candidates?

Because they aren't as good at it as he is. He is relentless at this because he has an unquenchable need to be the centre of everything, good or bad. He is a malignant narcissist; he doesn't expend the slightest bit of energy worrying if something is true or false.

I think he's an appalling person. But let's be clear: he has at least one great, unnerving talent where news management is concerned, which is a belligerent commitment to always being talked about.

That power should answer to truth, I mean.

Or that truth should speak to power.

Brain failing due to hunger

Well, you couldn't, as the licences stand, because they are specifically non-transferrable too, right? In the wording.

Ehh. I speak as a pretty long-term WP-oriented developer who is no fan of WP Engine for reasons that are defined by having used their product when I say:

This was the only sensible and just outcome.

The "Secure Custom Fields" thing is one of the most egregious things to happen in open source for at least a decade. Just crazy.

Hopefully Matt understands he has become self-limiting and steps back from some of his positions/takes off one of his too many hats.

It is a notable exception but it is a complicated one; not what it seems.

For one thing, Trump will talk to 60 Minutes when it suits him, I suspect. There is no journalist who has criticised him who he hasn't called terrible names and then spoken to again -- it's a pattern. He invites his critics back in. And they will always come back.

He hasn't locked out 60 Minutes the way that simply refusing to talk to journalists, or booting them out of the room, does. The way he responded to 60 Minutes was responding to the media. He responded in the media. He levelled accusations, they responded to his accusations. On his terms.

Like a violin.

And then when he does a 60 Minutes interview again -- which he will -- he will humiliate them for coming back, at least once, in that interview.

I am not saying this as a fan of the man; I believe all his other talents to be malevolent. But I am saying he is unbelievably, astonishingly good at what he does to the media for his benefit.

To. Not with. Not for. To.

For example, he rails against leaks but he is the biggest leaker. He rails against anonymous sources but he speaks off the record through proxies all the time. It's dark arts genius.

"Don't speak to journalists" is comically inept on the Trump scale. Anyone who thinks they are comparable strategies is not paying attention.

That truth should answer to power is one of the USA's greatest exports; it strengthened journalistic traditions the world over.

If you're happy to see this curtailed in the ways you're expressing, I cannot help you understand the downsides.

> A. Who specified this implied contract?

Nobody specifies implied contracts. They are implied.

In the case of the USA, from centuries of understanding that what marked the USA out as different to the European states from which people were dissenting was a commitment that power would answer to truth and constitutional protections to enable that.

(I'm a Brit but this is obvious to me)

> That’s a warning sign to the media they’ve overstepped their bounds.

If this is the way people are now thinking, then they deserve the Rollerball future they are building for themselves.

HN needs one of those "Remind me in X days" things.

In general, if you harm everyone in an instinctively obvious but factually hard-to-demonstrate way, there aren't any meaningful penalties. The situations in which "we all suffer" are the ones where people get away with it, eh?

Personifying it this way -- finding someone who is clearly injured -- is the only way to make progress.

It's like tapping HN on the knee with a reflex hammer, isn't it?

> I bet there's a good alignment between people making outrageous LLM claims and people who shilled for those other things too, for how they were "right around the corner".

Have you ever played the "scroll back far enough" game on e.g. Twitter?

So many guys (it is always guys) with .ai in their posts used to have .eth in their posts. They used to be all-in on NFTs.

Grifters gonna grift. Salesmen are much more likely to believe sales pitches, etc.

I would also add that "Get over it!" is a reliable tell for an awful person. It means "I do not wish to be confronted with even the smallest, most unarguable negative consequences of the position I have enthusiastically bought into".

> You said your parent gave you the right to tell people here to fuck off.

I literally did not, did I? I mean, that is pure projection.

I'm sure I don't have any such right, nor should I need it.

I did reply to another comment about my concerns about Diary of a CEO in the context of nutrition advice.

And yet, and yet, I still wouldn't take his diet advice that seriously.

> the fact that his life-long diet caused his cancer and killed him

It's not even a fact that it was a life-long diet.

It's certainly not a known fact that it caused his cancer. You don't know. Nobody knows.

I don't know if it would or would not. But some cynicism feels warranted by association.

And then there's the further research you can do:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ketogenic-diets-for-cancer-...

I dunno. I don't know enough to evaluate this in precise detail. But I do know enough to feel cynicism about extraordinary claims.

The host in this case is a significant investor in Huel who seemingly fails to mention his relationship to it when bigging it up.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rwz5xkrg8o

To me it casts any discussion of nutrition on his podcast in a somewhat different, less than neutral light.

Going to go out on a limb here and say you probably shouldn't get any scientific advice about nutrition -- or really any scientific advice at all -- from anyone on Diary Of A CEO.

Pancreatic cancer killed him, you absolute nitwit.

And yet:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16172215/

I mean... in terms of our scientific understanding at this point, sporadic pancreatic cancer just comes from nowhere. We don't know why. In the case of the parent I lost to it, it could have been triggered by a response to inflammation from previous surgery. It seems plausible. But nobody knows.

I just think people snarking or factoiding about Steve Jobs' panicked response to an awful disease comes across as projection of other judgements more than anything else. He was a complicated, self-reliant person who made a bad decision when he was scared. And it probably (but by no means certainly) cost him a few years of health. And now he is gone. And it's still sad for the people who lost him and for the wider world.

> anecdata is no substitute for controlled studies.

Using Steve Jobs as an example is also anecdata.

> That there were treatments available that he forwent is immaterial

Is it really?

> i hate nerd tunnel vision

I don't hate anyone but if I did, I'd probably start with people who don't extend compassion and understanding where it costs nothing to do so.

Not much evidence that keto fights cancer any better than any other exclusion diet; it might even be worse than meat exclusion diets.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the least funny things. Don't be flippant.

He's not a prime example of anything to do with fruit making things worse. His chosen therapy just as likely had no worsening impact on his cancer; the problem was it had no positive impact either and he put off surgery.

He had a rare form of pancreatic cancer that grows from the tip of the pancreas and can sometimes be snipped out without consequence early enough that it doesn't spread.

He presumably freaked out about it all nevertheless (because it's terrifying), avoided surgery for too long and ended up having a Whipple procedure, which is fucking brutal.

But there's still a pretty good chance he would have had early surgery and still ended up needing a Whipple procedure and still have passed away on roughly the same timescale. Because pancreatic cancer is a stealthy thing, and the Whipple procedure comes with its own frightening future.

It's really sad he freaked out, it's really sad he didn't listen. But it's not that unusual. He's far from unique in making irrational decisions in the face of terrifying diagnoses. Should it have been a slam dunk decision? Yeah. Of course. But there we are.

This is is sort of like the argument against a blank tape levy or a tape copier tax, which is a reasonable argument in the context of the hardware.

But an LLM doesn't just enable direct duplication, it (well its model) contains it.

If software had a meaningful distribution cost or per-unit sale cost, a blank tape tax would be very appropriate for LLM sales.

But instead OpenAI is operating a for-pay duplication service where authors don't get a share of the proceeds -- it is doing the very thing that copyright laws were designed to dissuade by giving authors a time-limited right to control the profits from reproducing copies of their work.

Exactly the point I am trying and evidently largely failing to get across :-) You managed it more concisely than me.

The Leave campaign was significantly duplicitous about post-Brexis access to the Single Market; they've always known it's a real thing or they wouldn't have had to lie about it.