In 2011 the iPhone was ~4 years old and iPads were ascendant as the only tablet game in town. Google was still playing catch up with Android as a knock-off, having just debuted Android Honeycomb.
The actual topics are:
- the Apple campus that is still unique today
- a rectification of an urban legend about Jobs and Knuth
- a clip showing Jobs was prescient in the late 90s about personalized cloud tech
Dismissing the focus on Jobs as a cult of personality is a mistake, he was simply very influential, and so was Apple at this time.
Meanwhile LLMs are the antithesis of the Jobsian style: just cramming pirated data into a model and reselling it as fake intelligence without real source attribution.
My "oh shit" moment with AI was when an industry where licensing was the cornerstone of projects and employment contracts decided to just adopt pirated code without any source attribution.
The other one was when a CTO boss sent me an AI proposal to review and the experience was like being gaslit by a con artist.
Many professional developers have started acting like the kind of employee that previously would've been fired after 3 months.
Woke lost, because it infected companies, universities and other organizations. It prompted entitled idiots like cited above to go into projects started by others, assume eminent domain, and attempt to take it over with slander and defamation. Always with the same script, pretending to defend while engaged in an unprovoked and drawn out attack.
See the cases of:
- The Ada Initiative
- DongleGate
- James Damore
- Bret Weinstein and Evergreen state (there's even a documentary by Mike Nayna about this)
Just to name a few.
Hyperventilating over the phrase "woke mind virus" or calling Musk a nazi a few dozen more times will not work.
You're the square, and your favored ideology lost.
We now even have BlueSky serving as the verifiable echo chamber of the idiots, and it's absolutely hilarious how they just can't stop attacking each other over there.
Calling for sources while questioning one of the most visible forms of social activism of the last decade is pure gaslighting btw.
And no, asking for sources is not gaslighting, no matter how much you say it is. It’s important to me that my beliefs are backed by evidence, and so you’ll have to forgive me that I just can’t assume that “a woke mind virus is a thing that exists” is a valid claim.
@sanity posted a sibling reply which I can’t reply to because it’s [dead] for some reason. In that reply they do give a couple of examples of recent literature that they say supports their claim. I will freely admit I’m not familiar with the work they’re citing so I’m going to look into it. Upon a brief look at a summary of the Lukianoff and Haidt work, I don’t think it actually addresses the claim which I was asking for sources for, but I will reserve judgment until I read it.
Asm.js was never needed as a legacy mechanism, as it was just a compilation target for native code. There was nothing that it needed to remain backwards compatible with, all asm.js code was new code.
OTOH asm.js can be retired now thanks to being backwards compatible with plain JS.
It allowed it to be an experiment that could have been quickly rolled out without a risk of forever lingering as a back-compat requirement for browsers.
Hm so not only is it possible to manipulate scores on HN with weird scripts, but mods only noticed this when users pointed it out in this instance, with no automation or logging there to detect something like this?
Do you suppose motivated individuals might have used something like this to bury wrongthink at a time when mods insisted such a thing wasn't happening, and even if it was, it was happening to all tribes equally so really it wasn't a big deal?
It's not that AI can't convince a novice that what comes out is passible.
It's that experts in a field generally agree that what comes out is insidiously hollow garbage.
This isn't a "semi-religious" belief. It's linear token soup and diffusion bakes running headfirst into actual expertise, second and third order effects, refined skill and taste, and so on.
If you actually want to see civilization advance, you cannot rely on machines that merely mash up existing intellectual output while pretending to have expertise.
We already had that in the form of art school avant-gardism. AI is just style transfer of that, with corporate sycophancy and valley hyperbole as a veneer.
But you really believe it will stay that way? What do you think models will be 10 years from now? (not only models, we must include processes and tools in it) - developers were thinking this until recently there is some sort of sudden switch where "shit, it's good enough" and then pass this in a 50x loop and suddenly it becomes "shit, it's actually great" which proves it's a matter of time imo before it's not hollow garbage but actually innovative and expert in its field.
I still think you are missing entirely the point about music or any art in general.
It doesn't matter how technically innovative, or how much expertise, a model has, while an AI is not a consciousness that can express itself it will be hollow. There's no way around that.
If some form of AI becomes conscious, and can express itself through whatever art form it conjures for that, why would it even use music? Music is human, it's tuned to how our brains work and perceive sounds, I'd be much more interested to discover what art forms another form of consciousness that we can commuicate with can come up on its own.
I can't fully agree with the hollow part, when AI resonate with me about real-life issues (I understand it's just a machine without thoughts) it's pretty expressive and spot-on, and genuinely useful. I don't really see why it couldn't be the same with music, it can already write completely unique pieces that are very entertaining and full of emotions (even tho they are "fake")...
The brain perceiving sounds a certain way in the end is just data, that can be mapped as well, an AI can make us laugh right because it understands speech really well (and will be a thousand time better someday), what's the actual difference with music?
Let me give you another example, there is some Meme about older folks getting bamboozled by AI images right (especially doomsday stuff) which proves that it does trigger them genuine emotions, what's the difference if that image does actually exist or not (or let say a human photographed it).
What if that does not matter to someone? I know my opinion can't be common, but I cannot stand live music. I dislike the sound quality, the differences from the recording, the crowds, the cost, and more.
I know not everyone enjoys concerts, but it’s fundamental to my listening experience. That aside, I have no interest in music or art of any kind generated by AI. Other folks might, but I’ll have nothing to do with it.
The difference is the indelitable reality behind it.
You are confusing the topography of it with the substance, what's the point of something that is without substance? Without meaning? It's just fake, whenever you point to someone that an image that brought them joy is fake, generated by AI, it immediately changes the feeling they had. It doesn't bring the same awe anymore, awe is reserved to what is real. It might bring awe in the sense of "woah, a computer can do that" but that's a different feeling than being in awe of the story the image created.
How can it be full of emotion if it's created by something without emotion? It's just a mimicry of emotion, I really cannot understand how you cannot feel that knowing it's not created by another being; being real is the whole point, an emotion triggered by something not real, not experienced, transformed, and communicated by someone else is inevitably hollow.
Like: how can AI know what is to feel in love? Or to feel the loss of a loved one? Or to feel despair about something? Or to feel depressed? Or to feel extreme joy? Why would you listen to a song telling you a story to evoke an emotion on something that simply does not exist? There is no experience being transmitted, it's purely a hollow amalgamated mimicry of the experiences that were ingested but the output has absolutely no emotion, just a synthetic mimesis of it.
You are enjoying the mimicry, it's entertaining, but I really would like for you to ask yourself deeper questions about this rather than be impressed by the surface of it.
> The brain perceiving sounds a certain way in the end is just data, that can be mapped as well
I completely understand your point of view, but I can't genuinely agree with:
> How can it be full of emotion if it's created by something without emotion?
A nice crystal, a nice rock (something devoid of emotion or feeling) is used as art, it's also triggering emotions in individuals, this thing doesn't have a consciousness, nor understand anything, but still, it's able to change humans brain chemistry. AI that acts as a therapist, let say saying the EXACT same thing as a real therapist would, let even bring it further where the therapist is on vidcall to have a proper representation, and let say now it's 1:1 AI generated as in zero flaws (exact same, you'd think it's a human with exact same speech as that therapist), why would the experience not be transmitted? Ton of people say things that they don't really mean as well right, and those thoughts are transmitted successfully, felt or not.
AI can incur pain, emotion, distress, happiness and so-on. I genuinely try to think about what's behind, but what I feel is that in the end, humans aren't so magical, it's like watching a beautiful woman being all "fake" with heavy make-up, most humans can still appreciate it, despite knowing it's all BS. People lie as well, this is very deceptive, let say someone is saying he is so happy but in reality, he just isn't, you just felt something for him that were just false (a mimick), and this is kinda our normal.
What if you never knew, let say you are so fond of an artist/person but in the end, you discover it's 100% AI without human supervision, then what, those were real emotions you felt, not entertainment, you RELATED with that "person", you felt his pain.
And one more thing, why couldn't I teach an AI to transmit my own knowledge, speak to it for decades, write to it for decades, then just mimick everything, mimicking the "truth" about my innerself, why would that not be valid? Isn't exactly what the bible is doing (I'm not religious), people seem to find it valid.
After making one of the least worst rich editors out there on the web, they needed to keep their developers and designers busy (while not having time to fix privacy bugs).
Like every other AI tool it mainly seems to exist to produce productivity porn. Summarize the meetings nobody could be bothered to summarize. Write the docs nobody can be bothered to read or write. Communicate as an end, not a means, because the company your work for has transitioned into the dead-weight phase.
This article's timeline is mostly accurate, but contains a few inaccuracies:
- Unified toolbar and titlebar dates from much earlier... it was 10.4, not 10.7.
- The brushed metal look was supposed to be applied to "appliance-like" apps as opposed to "document-like" apps... But Apple was never able to stick to that rule themselves.
There are a few design ideas that always turn out to be bad when implemented, but which designers seem to have to learn the hard way. Transparency is the biggest one, but I guess so is excessive rounding now.
>Despite the quick spread of agentic coding, institutional inertia, affordability, and limitations in human neuroplasticity were barriers to universal adoption of the new technology.
Blaming lack of adoption purely on regressive factors follows the same frame that AI firms set. It isn't very effective satire for that reason.
It couldn't be that there is something essential and elementary that is wrong with the output, no... all these experienced experts are just troglodites and wrong and we should instead tag along with the people who offloaded the parts of their work they found tough to a machine the first chance they got.
There's no such thing as ape coding. There's still just coding, and vibe coding.
The person this thread is about publicly outspoke and critized Watkins, 8chan and other forums that promote hate speech. Multiple times, in newspapers and documentaries about the topic(s).
He went in business with the wrong people, and they followed him years after that, with bogus lawsuits, showing up at his door step to intimidate him, threats etc.
Personally, I wanted to say that he was a person that strongly believed in the idea of open debate and cultural exchange. So much so that it was too late for him to see what the Watkins family and their qanon/pol/whatever movement were planning to do with his boards.
The actual topics are:
- the Apple campus that is still unique today
- a rectification of an urban legend about Jobs and Knuth
- a clip showing Jobs was prescient in the late 90s about personalized cloud tech
Dismissing the focus on Jobs as a cult of personality is a mistake, he was simply very influential, and so was Apple at this time.
Meanwhile LLMs are the antithesis of the Jobsian style: just cramming pirated data into a model and reselling it as fake intelligence without real source attribution.
reply