vibing
Any conversation
Testing this quiet corner of the web. I collect small notes about everyday tools ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ file formats, tiny utilities, offline workflows. First post is just a hello; longer notes will follow once I settle in. Plain text feels good after years of heavy editors.
(Opinion) People donโt like generative AI because it made the {insert creativity} too easy. Saw the HN post on โAI music banned from top 40 chart in Australiaโ and people had very strong opinions in both directions.
The hot take: If youโre ok with someoneโs creativity being outsourced to others, then you should be ok with AI doing the same.
If โAI made this and I call it mineโ is bad but โsomeone overseas on fivver made this and I call it mineโ and itโs suddenly ok, time to self reflect.
โฆ
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).
โฆ
Youโre rolling the dice whenever you are searching for a sample or a preset in a synthesizer. Eventually itโs what โsounds goodโ, so still the effort is your judgement and the time spent finding that โdice rollโ 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.
Still in Quebec City, which has a pretty sizable street population once you come down from the hill where the tour groups go. We had to basically step over some guys sharing a glass pipe on the only stairs up the hill yesterday; I have teenagers so this bothered me.
Later, my youngest and I were talking and he says "why don't the police do something about that?"
I find myself building bespoke tooling for my own and workflows these days, not only because of the obvious reason of software being so much cheaper to build, but also because there are SO MANY options for solving any given problem that it feels impossible to evaluate all of them.
If it's not a crucial piece of tech for a work problem then it often feels like paving my own way is both cheaper mentally (kind of amazing that's true these days) and probably a better fit.
It will become increasingly harder to find niche markets for software when those people can just build it themselves exactly how they want it. In the end, people want to accomplish tasks, and the AI is going to be building the software on-the-fly exactly for that task, why do we need generic software that may or may not be a fit?
Yeah. It makes me think that protocols for exchanging data between apps will become even more important in that landscape. But maybe, not - maybe each exchange is another bespoke AI-driven implementation?
Protocols, infrastructure, containers, those kinds of things. I was actually playing around with an idea for a minimal markup language + runtime that can be utilized by AI to spin up apps more easily, and brainstorming it with ChatGPT, I have a feeling something like that will appear soon to complement MCP.
I like this guy I drew
ibb.co/vxRtMxQC