Victor

Because forced by society machine

Exactly, first language (spoken or programming) doesn’t seem to play a role. It’s more about the mental model. 👍

My language does that, as well as English in which I am fluent. I still find type-first to be impractical.

Also when you write the code, you are usually looking to create a variable, so maybe you type “var” or “const”, right, then you have a contextual name in mind, maybe salary. Then you can make a decision, which type it should be. Maybe “whole dollars”? “Dollars in a decimal number”? Or it could be a complex type in other contexts.

That’s how I prefer to write code. 👍

Maybe it makes more sense to someone who knows more than one language as well, e.g. languages that use a noun-adjective structure, like French, or Farsi. I don’t know. But for me it’s not about language, it’s about practicality. Findability and writability, if those can be considered words, lol.

I learned Java first. I think type should come second as well, like in TypeScript et al.

If you’re ever looking for the variable manually for some reason, by searching with your eyes, it’s easier to find it by searching in the first character column.

Otherwise, if you ever need to see the type of something, which… should be obvious from the context in quality code, your LSP should just be able to tell you directly, by some mechanism (hover with mouse, or some keyboard action).

Are you a compiler?

Ah yes, the MSDMAMPMCRAPAFRRFC.

I was talking about using AI as a tool during software development, always have been.

Same as us. I guess. I’ve only been following our thread between the two of us, so I can’t speak for others. But yeah, that’s what I’ve also been talking about?

You’re not discussing the usefulness of AI as a tool to developers,

No, I’m not, because that’s not what we disagree on, first of all… 🤷‍♂️

You, and others, are determined to turn it into a discussion about the ethics of data centers.

Yes, second of all, because those are the most pressing and disturbing and important and urgent aspects in all of AI, the ethics. Of course they are, why wouldn’t they be. Nothing is as interesting or important as they are. Nothing!

And I’m not blaming you for anything. No need to play a victim. We’re having a discussion. 👍 You’re okay.

I’m having a really hard time determining if you are debating me in good faith here. It is virtually indistinguishable from willful misunderstanding.

Anyway, I’m all for the benefit of the doubt. ❤️

So a musician who doesn’t fully and directly control all the sounds in their music is not an artist?

Exactly. A pianist who can’t control the outcome of which keys they play on their piano is not a “pianist”, in my opinion. Same for any instrument, that I can think of.

Likewise, a singer who can’t control the outcome of which notes they sing, or which words they sing, is not a singer. Barring oddities like singers with Tourette’s Syndrome, or a completely tone deaf (or regular deaf) person. Those types of things don’t count, I suppose.

Likewise for electronic music created with the help of a music-making program where you just drag and drop sounds. You are still in complete control of the outcome.

Many big artists would fall short of your definition in that someone who isn’t them is controlling the lyrics, music production, final mix and so on.

Yeah, no, it’s not on that level. You are both going too deep and too high with this. Again, too extreme in interpretation.

I still don’t see the difference if someone has an idea in their mind and they are able to create that idea in the world with tool A vs tool B

Well, it’s about specifics in the music, then, I guess. If your “idea” is “I want to make a rock song”, you are not a creative artist. You are a prompt kiddie. That’s my take. Take it or leave it.

But if you have a musical idea, like a melody in mind, how do you prompt that? Can you play or hum a melody as a prompt? Why would you even? Are you trying to get it to finish the song for you? Why? You already have the inspiration in the form of a melody. Finish it! Know what I mean?

It’s not about understanding how the sound is physically, or electrically generated. It’s not that far down. It’s about controlling the music, every note, every instrument, etc. About directly controlling the outcome.

Electronic drums are often contentious, e.g. But if there’s a person in control of every percussion stroke, it’s just an instrument to me. All good.

Even if the drums are completely programmed, there’s still a person behind it who has a vision and a desire to have it sound exactly like that.

It’s not randomly generated where the “artist” presses a button and really has no idea exactly what the outcome might be.

With regards to your idea of generating some sort of scaffolding for a song and then continually editing it, I have to agree to disagree on that point. I have a problem with the origin of the starting point.

Even if you make a very close cover of a song that you didn’t write yourself, it’s still a work that had a basis in human inspiration and composition. Generative AI is not a human, even though the training data is likely of human origin.

Ultimately it’s the value we place in the amount of human input versus non-human input, in the case of works of art like music and imagery. I am not interested in non-human works. The ratio between the human and non-human input needs to be high enough for me to be interested.

Just like in sports. If someone sets a record but was high on enhancement drugs, it doesn’t count, or doesn’t make it as impressive. To me at least.

Hopefully my standpoint is made clear here.

No, this is taking it too far (and I think you might know that?).

What I’m talking about is control, and a clear vision of what the song should sound like in advance, before recording or performing it.

Of course, improvisation is another thing, where you lose the “in advance” aspect. But you are still in complete control in that case, of the outcome, as opposed to the case with generative AI. You are in control of every note, every sound created.

If for instance someone recorded all their own training data, designed their own NN, trained it, and prompted it would that be enough or not?

No, not for me. If the person involved doesn’t understand how or why the sounds created are created/assembled, then they are not the artist IMO. The artist is the one with the vision, with a clear idea of how it should sound. If they are not in control of that, they are not the artist, IMO.

That’s not the scenario we’re complaining about and you know it.

You keep making your case around a veeeeeeeeeryyyyy specific type of user. It’s hard not to think it’s actually a specific person you’re talking about lol. Hardly a common scenario. 😆

If you don’t intend to sell or distribute that game, the only aspects left that I can think of are:

• you’re not helping yourself by using AI, you’re just making yourself dumber, so if your goal is simply to make a game, fine, but if you want to maintain your coding skills, it’s a bad idea.
• the extra energy consumption, which happens regardless if you’re using your GPU or someone else’s GPU. Might even be worse if everyone uses their own GPU, because there’s a whole ass PC system built around that GPU that also consumes power. But I dunno if that’s the case, actually. I guess this is moot if you’re off the power grid with your own power source, such as full solar or something.
• how has the open source model been trained? On what data?

You’re likely conflating the tools with the implementation or the implementers.

I don’t think so, no?

We felt like he’s right about it being useful tools but the ethical aspects are hard to ignore. Yes, many ethical aspects.

Is “kill” a strong word here? They are heavily restricting it, and it’s reversible with some effort, know-how, and compromise, right?

But killing it, I feel like they are not. Even though I strongly oppose what they are doing, don’t get me wrong!

I’m confused by the title. Are you saying the stuff in the picture is wrong or misrepresenting reality, or the opposite?