QuantumGood

Love the AI format with obvious misunderstanding to this and all your other comments; makes it much easier to find AI bots like yourself.

Allowing for creative incubation is a real thing. But task restarting penalty is real as well: you lose context and your mental model; working memory loses details; dependencies are reverified unnecessarily; flow state momentum lost; environment reconstruction each time and similar administrative tasks, etc.

It's an "absence of light" pattern (as opposed to dark pattern). Creating a very common tech support issue; sometimes "login" isn't even visible.

Commoditization always takes volume from the marketplace, but not necessarily profit. Apple and Military tech come to mind. Positioning is rarely done well looking forward, but often shakes out in unexpected ways.

A one point a very hated thing was how they defrauded advertisers using their services. They have increased the fraud over time, so that hate hasn't gone away.

At a certain point in the process, a little additional content multiplies the value of your existing efforts. But that is misunderstood (survivor bias?) as "make lots of content, because the successful people did".

"Good artists copy, great artists steal, the best artists make lies seem true." – Steve Jobs.

Actually, Jobs self-servingly refactored then misattributed to Picasso the line,

  "Good artists copy, great artists steal."

  "When there's anything to steal, I steal."

  "What does it mean, an artist copies? It is normal. The important thing is to do it better."

  "Art is a series of masterly thefts."

"Yes, ..." is how I notice all the models (4-5 that I use) in the last week or so have begun saying "No, ..." except for Kimi. I ask a lot of questions in the form of "Question about the feature: does it allow for ..." and the answer will reliably start with "Yes, the feature exists and does this thing you have labeled as [blank] which can be explained as ..." and later "However, ..." giving the information I requested (no, it doesn't allow for what you need). It's actually kind of uncanny.

I've started testing identical prompts across models, just to clearly see the "Yes, ..." with the "..but.." buried.

Example: "Can you view the salvage car in the lot before it is scheduled for sale?" "Yes, cars are viewable on the lot by members before they go on sale, blah, blah, blah." Then later "However, cars not yet scheduled for sale are not allowed to be viewed at the lot".

Example: "Can I control the keyboard shortcut Chrome has hijacked so that my existing OS keyboard shortcut will work even while Chrome has focus?" "Yes, chrome keyboard shortcuts, blah, blah, blah," and later "No, chrome does not allow ... ".

There is clearly some recent implementation of the idea that starting with "Yes, ..." has some benefit, but I'm having trouble adapting to the feeling of being lied to as a policy.

And knocking out the messy garage background to replace it with a showroom is the easiest prompt.

Compaction is a feature like swapping out a car for a tricycle is a feature for greater economy.

Each new iteration of the hype cycle feels "like its not hype" because the tech is more promising in new ways, but the hype comes from human perception. New tech has to fight a lot of real world and project management issues, and development morphs and slows. We don't know exactly what we have until it faces these issues.

... and then it stopped having that ability to build on create concise, accurate summaries and expand on them. Same problem with GPT 5.6 Sol. I even tried and old prompt in the (more nerfed) recent version. The core initial thinking ability lowered, and I'm getting the same over-metacognition and epistemology as it tries to pull at threads in the brainstoriming process again.

Finishing the conservative sentence but not the liberal sentence? "Fewer armed police responsibilities for nonviolent issues such as homelessness" is more clearly the liberal position.

A person in my family started one of the first rape crises centers in the U.S. She always said "Police need to be social workers, and social workers need to be police" summarizing the issues each faced most that they were poorly prepared for all those generations ago.

You can frame setting up AI such that some of that activity is similar to some coding activities you like, or that some of that activity releases you from some of the coding activities you don't like.

It's a really personal thing; some of what you like can be getting some kinds of results quickly, for example. The answer to "What is it like to code?" or "What do you like about coding?" cannot be overly generalized or reductionist since it depends as much on personal preferences as it does classifying activities.

TLDR; hard to resolve that question with dialog.

Complexity resists reduction, yet fundamentals that affect change over time exist.

That said, growth seeks to shed restrictions upon it, but unrestricted growth has many suboptimal effects on the area it grows in.

If you propose a system growth effect thesis (established example: the iron law of oligarchy), it's not possible to show its influence both accurately, and in such a way that agrees with most observers. It may not even be useful; it might exist as a concept better in a group relation with other concepts, and focusing on the group might be most useful.

And responses to actions to display a system's properties tend to be about those actions, not about the system.

Some of the most popular responses re: growth are "the area doesn't have a beneficial significance equal to the beneficial significance of the growth", but one is measured essentially to support propaganda, and other is barely measured and poorly understood.

Once you narrow the framing, people criticize the framing as the reality, not its usefulness as a paradidm for the reality of the issue. The map is not the territory; we cannot "describe" reality. We can create interfaces to that reality, we can measure, discuss, theorize about cause and effect, attempt to emulate or simulate to better understand, but responses tend to focus on the interface instead of the reality, and then devolve to epistimelogical "statements about statements" type activity.

Just opened it and Bridge updates are unavailable due to incompatibility: Windows 11 only. Of course my hardware is Windows 11 incompatible.

The most powerful humans, and human systems, often score very low on stewardship and empathy. While "cancer" triggers as opinionated, using a less-charged analogy I think should probably make a similar point.

I came here because of a comment on the one you linked to, that includes this information:

Since the link that was posted is just an AI copyright theft site, use the original instead: https://climatecasino.substack.com/p/some-monsters-are-real

Their comment was good as is because of the extension (not a nitpick, a clarification)

We saw a trickle of decent new young-to-middle-aged talent that was prompted in part by heavy marketing of VO training 20 years ago—many weren't sure what it was.

But the animation and video game and social media meme generation knew from near birth was voice acting was, and the "instant success" of the early pandemic driving huge numbers to establised VOs on online marketplace led to the next marketing glut: "Look how I easily I make $10,000/mo".

The ease of (starting on) the marketplaces, the rise of the least-talented at age of "I want to do this", most interested in voiceover generation combined with the get-rich-quick from home just blitzed everywhere with no-quality, no business skill newbies. Just an astonishing locust storm, and virtually all of the "how to" information they are consuming is out-of-date, leading to a lowering of already low business skills. As you say, the difficulty seen in finding a good VA gives a different picture than too many buyers want AI. Almost all the NON buyers want AI.

Fable is the first one I found could bring brainstorming concepts closer to what I was striving for instead of adding in clutter and defocusing.

Just to clarify your implication: Fable subscription usage was just (re)extended to July 19

The bigger factor for quite some time has been the 10x of low-end competition since just pre-pandemic. Hard to find a decent human, hard for a human to start out and rise above the sludge. There has been a similar 10x of desire for VO, since online marketplaces made it cheap and (formerly) easy to get.

Also, a huge amount of VO has been literally unpaid. Producers often tell the story of learning from clients paying for good VO that it took them years to make the journey from having employees / friends etc "just talk it" and find out that "talking" is actually acting. "They don't pay for it until they learn they have to," one advertising agency founder told me over ten years ago. AI is slowing their journey to paying for good voice actors.

I used to hire owners of talent agencies, owners of recording studios, owners of advertising agencies to speak and train at our nearly 80 large public events (the Voice Acting Expo) at conference hotels, and learned a lot of "from the horse's mouth" info about the inside of the industry. We would record as many as 350 sessions/day, each with a studio room, coach, engineer, script and admin for every few room. Scheduling nightmare, but tons of fun.

Simple and easy are often conflated a bit, but measured by outcomes, are quite different. Comments offerring humorous parallels of common simple and easy conflations will follow.

Carfentanyl potentcy is roughly 10,000 times morphine. The pursuit of optimized technology usually far outpaces regulation or any kind of control. As technologies are controlled, even the lessened availability of more potent types causes an enormous overall issue. Humans are obsessive-compulsive optimizers, for good and for ill.

Of course, over time, I use custom entries.

My snippet expansion entry in Wispr is "Chess Knight" = "Knight" ("Knight to f3" without customization was more reliable than "Chess Knight")

I also use "dot bullet" = "•", as I like to separate thoughts with • more than ;

You seem to be referencing as core business value a combination of (1) the ability to maintain a (2) business criitical resource, but stating it as if catastrophizing from a hasty generalization. Can you clarify?

It's really not that simple. A lot of what's involved is fungible. Of course, the answer to "Was the greatest intelligence harnessed to make the greatest decision?" Is always no.

AIs can be swapped for one another, run locally, and implemented in ways that are less prone to loss of function. Loss of anyone who understands the working code is a type of risk, but that kind of issue tends to bounce between losing skill from lack of foresight due to economic savings, and overhiring / bringing back lost employees as consultants.

Same trick with many others. I say "Knight" to Wispr or Google and see "night". I say "Knight to f3", and just backspace out "to f3".

Causes create effects and eventually exist in a field of those effects. Kramnik was rapidly informed of statistical issues with his approaches in easy-to-understand ways (and also in technical detail). His "convincing for a layman" needs to be noted as "not convincing to himself after becoming more informed". So part of the issue is why he continued to pretend, either or both to himself or to others that his method was useful.

Chief chess.com officer IM Danny Rensch, among others, explained how Kramnik’s theories about how unlikely various streak lengths were were completely wrong with easy to understand detail.

Kramnik: “This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about”.

Cue 27 framings of what is happening/what will happen next, with 27^3 re-framings.