But the question here is chs, not ch. Which though rare, is widely understood to be a kind of guttural sound or "k" sound followed by an s. In -uchs or -ichs coming from German.
No, the edits are better. The original message made unwarranted assumptions, and used intentionally inaccurate language. That's objectively bad communication.
It's not a binary choice between insults (escalates conflict, destabilizes rational decision making) vs hiding your opinions. That's what the word tact is for. It's simply, quite literally, a skill issue if someone can't find a middle ground between those two failure modes.
Thanks for the quote. It shows why Eno was so successful - I find all my favorites work either as entirely background sound or as a total listening experience on their own.
Weird - I also listened to ambient music for almost a decade before hearing about Tim Hecker. I have to second the recommendation, although I started in a different place - when I first heard Harmony in Ultraviolet, it was like something clicked into place. Ambient music had been missing something and I hadn't even known it.
I had a similar experience with Abul Mogard. Whoever they really are is a genius of immense soundscapes.
> There are definitely times you want to specify a type.
So I'm coming from basically obly TypeScript type system experience but that seems completely ok to me. There are times I make my TS uglier to make it less ambiguous and times I make it more ambiguous to make it more readable. It's unreasonable imo that such a system could universally land on the most readable format even if we could all agree what's most readable. Instead, some cases are going to be tradeoffs so that the more common cases can flow unimpeded.
There was some confusion. I originally read Wiseowise's comment as a failure to think of anything that could be "useful but bad for humanity". But given the followup response above I assume they're actually saying that LLMs are similar to tools like the Internet or Wikipedia and therefore should simply not be in the bad for humanity category.
Whether that's true or not, it is a different claim which doesn't fit the way I responded. It does fit the way Libidinalecon responded.
I'm sorry to be harsh, but honest question - What's the purpose of using AI to create toy software that already exists (eg. YouTube downloader)? Normally the purpose would be to learn how to create that type of software, but that's presumably being skipped.
Similarly... what's the point of blogging if you're not writing it yourself? This post is very long, but seems to basically just be riffing on the title over and over, at least by the 3rd graph. If you're not explaining anything and readers aren't receiving anything - what's it for?
I really am asking with curiosity even though it's probably clear I have an opinion on this endeavor. There must be a reason you've paid money to do all this!
For me, it is about learning about what AI can and can’t do, how to progressively prompt, how to avoid problem, etc. once you understand that you can build more things quickly. I gained a pretty good understanding of what it can/cant do, how many prompt it will take to get there, and which model(s) are capable.
But then we've come back to the central point. The purpose of blogging is to organize your own thoughts, essentially. Why not write about what you've learned?
> the purpose of blogging is to organize your own thoughts
I don't get this comment. People can create content for any number of reasons and those reason will vary widely by the author. I like to use it to share something interesting to me that is too long for a Linkedin post.
Well actually you're right that blogs can have different purposes, however I think we're talking about basically the same purpose here, in "sharing something interesting to me", and what I meant is that I wasn't seeing how AI writing is actually doing that. But I'll leave you be, I'm not here to harass you and I think I've gotten the answers I was looking for.
No, it's not. Unless you think the "n" in french is pronounced "nt".
reply