And thanks to AI, we could generate extremely convincing reams of code whose only purpose is to be fake unit tested. Amazing. I sincerely hope I never need to use this nuclear weapon.
Or better yet: effectively fake unit tests. It is almost never the case that tests written by AI detect actual issues. At most they detect that has changed.
Yeah I’ve been thinking that LLM unit tests are basically snapshot tests. Just sorta ossify things in place. If they break, you just ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and have the LLM fix them. It’s like they were never there!
So it’s just like the olden days of everybody ignoring tests, but we give anthropic a ton of cash
Suno is completely incapable of producing heavy metal. I can't speak for other genres bc I don't listen to them, but what it produces is completely hollow and devoid of what makes metal metal. I also think most metal fans will categorically reject AI-made metal on principle.
Suno's incapable of making psytrance, which is mind-boggling as that is an intensely repetitive, machine-like genre that should be water off a duck's back to produce.
The problem is that it's doing it by diffusion techniques, so all its high percussion is totally vague and indistinct. Hell, it can't even do a decent psy kick because that too is unspecific and you can't have a psy track that is vague and blunted.
Turns out you can have a production that is hollow, weak and devoid of what makes purely synth machine tracks. It can't get trancey in a serious way because it's not capable of being sharp enough.
That is an illustrative failure. It might be absurdly simple 4/4 pattern progressions which a calculator should be able to automate. But inducing a trance requires consciousness; electrical activity in a meat brain. They will never understand such things.
just verified, it cant make a decent techno track, nor a drone track nor anything experimental. Its creativity is subpar, it feels like listening to a producer that knows where things go but is tired of playing, zero interest in creating/ performing, it gives off that kind of vibe
Just tested google's (lyria, integrated into gemini), and it made an honestly not bad progressive death metal song with female vocals alternating growling and melodic (though I accidentally used gemini pro to forward the prompt to the actual music gen model, so I assume it augmented with something to make it not "generic heavy metal").
I mean, even if could produce generic metal would it produce Igorrr? Meshugga? Tim Henson? Baby Metal? All of these are driven by other things then just producing metal. I agree pure AI music would properly rejected unless there was some point to it. I could see it have some part, but then as a weird instrument. Take a model for music, randomly mutate internal weights and then let it produce a drum beat. Keep doing that unless you hit some limit and perhaps that is interesting.
>will categorically reject AI-made metal on principle.
I think this is a huge part of the reason people sometimes find AI criticism so dismissible; there is always some factor other than the actual product it seems that AI-made assets are judged on. With Suno, the biggest ones I've seen are 1) hating AI-created music by virtue of it being AI-created, and 2) the hate is from people who attempt to generate income from their music production, and Suno made music cuts into that pie.
This is obviously "hating AI music on principle". Your last sentence means that there is literally nothing Suno can produce to change your mind.
Not hating it on principle would be something like "Suno-produced music I've listened to is derivative/soulless and has that annoying AI quality that makes me want to turn it off immediately. Maybe one day it could produce something genuinely moving and beautiful, but I'm skeptical."
They didn't say "genuinely moving and beautiful", they said their favorite music is about "the human element / someone / I know they mean it / I can tell it’s genuine / who they are as a human".
They didn't even say they "hate" other music, either, just that it's not their favorite.
If someone says "I only like green paintings", that excludes red paintings, even ones that have the word "green" written on them. Nothing to "fix" there, if anything, the question is why some people just won't accept that. They are acting oddly, not the people who know what they like and why.
I didn't say there was anything to fix (I didn't use that word). The poster I replied to is free to dislike AI on principle. I'm just pointing out that his dislike of AI is in fact based on principle.
I don't see much point in continuing this thread. You're fixated on defending the poster's level-headed criticism of AI in music. I'm addressing a much more specific point- that despite the poster's claim, his distaste for AI in music is based on principle. No matter how many advances AI makes in music, he will be unmoved because his preference for human-made music is exactly that it is not made by AI.
Metal, punk, hardcore - any type of heavy music, really, should reject AI-made slop. If you’re a fan and/or maker of them and are not just wearing the genres as an aesthetic, you fully know they are a rejection of corporate and governmental control.
This is really true for most music genres outside the pop mainstream. The idea of AI free jazz is just as absurd as AI punk.
More generally, we think that music (and art in general) is a form of human expression and communication. The very idea of AI music just seems absurd, as it completely misses the point of what constitutes music as an artform. Why should I listen to something that has been produced entirely without human intent? Why should I prefer a cheap simulacrum over the original?
follow the money, they wont be selling vinyl but generating streaming revenue, just type in what you know are paying niches and off you go to fill the hard drives with slop to be paid by advertisers on streaming platforms.
Right now I am not seeing a great track record of rich people being punished for crimes. The only one so far is Epstein and he was only punished for being caught.
What's really easy - and what, in my own mouse's eye perspective seems to be dominating at present - isn't even optimizing costs. It's pushing the costs elsewhere, often a net loss for a company, but for the benefit of the ones making the change.
Just today, the LLM based auto-review that my company enabled for all PRs edited my PR description to confidently assert that I had added a new RPC. I had not. I deleted code and nothing else. Nothing was added. The RPC it claimed I added did not exist.
It's one of those things where $400 is WAY too much for a homelabber, but most companies (even small ones) can barely count that low when speccing out hardware, ESPECIALLY these days. $400 is like one hard drive in a machine that will potentially have 8-24 of them.
......Unsettlingly that's also like 16GB of dram in a machine that might be measuring memory in TBs
I kinda wanted to get a KVM recently, but decided to save my money to afford RAM for my planned server build instead. Might even get a 32 GB kit for $400.
There are tons of devices used that have no built-in BMC (like the Thinkpads in the original comment in this thread), yet still need reliable remote control in certain cases (e.g. a remote lab, or multiple-unit headless testing).
It would be a bit odd if a place was deploying new Dell servers and slapping IP KVMs on top of them.
OK, I just don't see the intersection of people/companies that are using thinkpads in their server room and those willing to pay $400 for a KVM being too large
Surprising amount of gear required extra licenses or even parts to have fully functional remote console that does all the stuff PiKVM 4 brings to the table, and not always do you have the benefit of properly operational netboot infrastructure (especially in corporate settings with their usually broken by design networks) - and remote boot media might be gated behind license.
So you end up with ipkvm because there might be windows server that requires remote display, or because for various reasons IPMI SOL or equivalent does not work properly (BIOS mode enabled instead of UEFI, SOL requiring extra license, etc). Or even not being able to setup autoconfiguration for BMC but for various reasons it's easier to setup ipkvm.
TBC I don't necessarily mean they're using them on those servers. Just saying the prices are peanuts to them. I find KVMs are usually used for non-rackmount / weird hardware that nonetheless ends up in a server room.
Yeah. Capitalism has never been less about actual profits and efficiency than it is right now. They just tout whatever random thing they're currently doing, regardless of why they're doing it or whether it was voluntary or not, is great and producing amazing results.
RTO is primarily pushed by the capitalist class, and managers are just stuck in the middle. No good manager wants pissed off employees, but managers who push back on the capitalist class do not stay managers long.
"If being in the office conforms to the interest of the capital class, it implies that WFH is inherently less efficient"
only if the capital class is solely motivated by efficiency. I think this is trivially demonstrable to be not the case.
The capital class's primary interest is self-preservation - both of their capital, of course, but also preserving their place in the pecking order. And they'll spend a LOT of the former to maintain the latter because the latter is how they got the former.
Through that lens, GP's point is perfectly coherent.
"They seem to imply that business owners just want employees to suffer as a goal in itself."
Have you met... people? Yes there are literally many owners who do want employees to suffer. Or, perhaps worse, will tolerate tremendous amounts of suffering in the pursuit of minor other gains. (Amazon pee bottles come to mind.) It would somehow be a comforting kind of moustache-twirling comic book evil to say they just want people to suffer. Another to say they simply don't value human happiness (or lack of suffering) enough to not trade large amounts of it for small things they do care about.
I had a boss who was only willing to hire non-whites because he could inflict undesirable work on them, leaving more desirable work for the white employees.
I just want to end this by remarking that this presumption of owners being perfectly optimal, morally clean agents of free markets is absurd and honestly disgusting to bring to an argument.
Shorting stocks has a very high "you must be at least this right" bar in order to make money. And given the uncapped nature of losses - the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent - you need to also be really correct about how high it'll go before you're right, and also, you're borrowing these shares you've sold, so you're on the hook for the borrow fee and also on the hook for paying dividends paid out to those shares you're borrowing but not holding. Plus you have to pay for the margin loans you're using.
That's a very high set of both static and scaling costs that eat away any profit you made by being nominally correct. Combined with the risk profile... you can't "just" go short a stock.
And yes, you can hedge losses with options or construct complicated options positions to try to hone in on a specific price movement you're anticpating. Now you have to deal with entering and exiting a complicated multi-instrument position without price slippage, AND you have theta decay and volatility-related price movements also eating away at the core money you're making by being nominally right.
Have people made money? Yes, for sure. There's also a lot of dead bodies and people who barely broke even despite theoretically having been right.
reply