hello folks
Any conversation
(Opinion) People don’t like generative AI because it made the {insert creativity} too easy. Saw the HN post on ‘AI music banned from top 40 chart in Australia’ and people had very strong opinions in both directions.
The hot take: If you’re ok with someone’s creativity being outsourced to others, then you should be ok with AI doing the same.
If “AI made this and I call it mine” is bad but “someone overseas on fivver made this and I call it mine” and it’s suddenly ok, time to self reflect.
…
My hot take: from the moment you use technology, be it an instrument, a synthesizer, a DAW, and now AI, it is still your idea, your effort, your time spent, and that makes it yours. Others can do the same if they choose. The same way someone chooses a classic guitar over a synthesizer, one can choose an AI over (insert ancient way of doing things).
…
You’re rolling the dice whenever you are searching for a sample or a preset in a synthesizer. Eventually it’s what “sounds good”, so still the effort is your judgement and the time spent finding that “dice roll” that sounded well.
I am not a musician, so I lack the jargon to properly explain what I mean.
I used AI for creative writing (nothing too fancy, TTRPG). There, the broader the dice roll, the more generic and uninteresting the results. Slop, if you will. It was surprisingly good to build up on ideas I had however.
I imagine muisic also has building blocks. Melodies, instruments, mixing, etc. AI can perhaps be used in a similar fashion there.
I heard a perspective I sort of like: if AI is a tool then acceptable AI use is, more or less, defined as "when my audience no longer notices or cares". It's dynamic like that. Bad photoshop is detectable and annoying, so are overusing presets. Your artistry needs to expand to meet the tool.
I don't know if I 100% like that or agree. At the same time, it's a pretty straightforward line, a practical take.
"for you" now contains the same message multiple times
…
added two more screenshots to - the "root" post view is incorrect, but when reply-on-reply, information goes up-then-down.
root post view IS correct, sorry.
I understand your confusion, but that's the formatting - quoted parent is below the child post - then that post's replies follow in the discussion view. The top post is always quoting its parent below it, the different bg makes it distinct. Just need to get used to it, same on X.
There really is no other way to include the parent otherwise, you have to break the hierarchy at some point, the other form would need to omit the parent body and show a 'parent' link but we want to include its body.
morning doodle of Vulpes.
ibb.co/WN48DSt3
NBA is BACK!! Check out this minimalist NBA score site I made few years ago
nba.5ntoro.com
anything you'd like to talk about
Interface looks sleek. The idea of text based messaging is quite interesting in the age photos and videos based heavy apps.
haha, yes. it's quiet on here though!
That’s also the point isn’t it? The people who like this place doesn’t like it too busy. So for them (us?) it will be a nice place to hang out as long as it stay uncommercial and low-key. But to be prosperous and interesting to the creator, it need to grow. 🤷♂️