The imbalance comes from how VAT and US taxes work differently. A European car comes to the show floor free of VAT. A US car likely has sales tax still embedded into the costs, and tariffs get multiplied on top of it. I'm not saying that it's anyone's "fault", but it is an advantage for countries that have VAT.
Actually the european car comes to the show floor with VAT already paid by the store selling the car. VAT is end user tax, it's paid by last one in the chain. So it's only after the shop sells the car when they get the VAT back from the sale (and they get back only what VAT they paid before).
Considering how cheap and easy it is to buy views/likes/subscribers I wouldn’t trust it blindly. Somehow I feel that people pushing AI music also would game the system, but I don’t have any proof unfortunately.
Lots of things are "good" in some contexts and "bad" in others. You may disagree that the mere existence of a list that omits AI is "good" for some people, but those people disagree with you.
There are well-known negative side effects. What are the side effects to listening to AI music? If there are negative side effects, then I'd guess they'd be shared with non-AI music, since they sound pretty close to the same by now. Or, maybe the "negative" side effect from the industry's perspective is that the price of listening to music will drop.
No, but if something is going to be close to free to produce the consequence will be that no commercial piece of music will be incentivized to be produced by humans.
Commercial music isn't the only way to make music, but it pays people that want to professionally work as musicians.
In other words, the current system allows a select few artists to make money/fame from doing something they want to do (opposed to have to do to make a living). Or also, AI music will lessen the good feeling some people get when they believe that musicians can make money producing music.
I don't disagree that these things exist, but I do believe that these are mostly propped up by dynamics that will soon no longer exist.
> Or also, AI music will lessen the good feeling some people get when they believe that musicians can make money producing music.
If that is your way of saying that AI will remove the possibility for humans to create music full time due to there being no money anymore in music then sure.
> I don't disagree that these things exist, but I do believe that these are mostly propped up by dynamics that will soon no longer exist.
The same dynamic that propped up blacksmiths, potters, tailors, etc.: the absense of scaling/automating technology. There is still demand for authentic artisanal crafts and the "good feeling" that these people can earn money, but the magnitude has been reduced to the farmer's markets.
I can see a similar thing playing out with music. There will still be some token demand, but people will not pay the same when they can have a magic, infinitely producing on-demand, tailored-to-their-taste music machine, at vanishingly small marginal costs.
Just a realistic thing. Or, a good thing for consumers, a bad thing for producers (and a bad thing for producers who are actually consumers in disguise of a desired lifestyle and/or status).
Good for consumers is highly debatable since we'd lose one more social connection in life. Something we are running a very high debt tab for already.
We would also lose musical knowledge since all the full-time musicians would have to stop playing. Only amateur musicians would remain.
And the "desired lifestyle" / "desired status" would be transferred to the already very, very rich and powerful AI company CEOs. Such an improvement ...
Looking at the surface, it is true, but there are caveats:
- Not all musicians are in the field because it pays, some of them haven't earned a cent
- There are talented people who would like to create music but are forced to work long hours, which leaves them drained. Perhaps in the future, humans won't have to work that much, which will allow them to pursue creative hobbies such as music making
- Artists will be able to continue performing live, which will act as a huge filter for the AI-generated content and keep paying them.
Aside from that I agree, though musicians just one of many groups disrupted by AI and I wouldn't say they'll be the ones hurt most by it, mostly because they can continue to "exist" outside of the Internet, and experiencing music live could become more popular because of it. A lot of assumptions here, I know
> Perhaps in the future, humans won't have to work that much,
I think that this is the fairytale part that I have trouble accepting.
Coming from a country that has a very limited social welfare system I don't believe that the political or social climate is adapted to take such steps in a future where a lot of things are automated.
It goes against everything that we've seen in the last 150 years.
> Artists will be able to continue performing live, which will act as a huge filter for the AI-generated content and keep paying them.
Or AI "musicians" will play live events as holograms.
> Aside from that I agree, though musicians just one of many groups disrupted by AI and I wouldn't say they'll be the ones hurt most by it, mostly because they can continue to "exist" outside of the Internet, and experiencing music live could become more popular behind it.
Sure, they might not be the most affected by AI, but they would still be affected which is the reason I'm not a fan of AI in music. This pushback doesn't need to be reserved to the most impacted activities.
Not sure about the "war" part of it, but the rules in place make it so that most people don't have easy, legal and public access to cocaine but the very determined people can find it. That sounds like a good trade-off.
For AI music it would be the same. You could find it online on some shifty third-party websites or use some illegal model on your own hardware but in the end it will always represent a minority use case.
Recently, there was an outrage when "Claire Obscur: Expedition 33" grabbed record-breaking amount of game awards (deservingly so, it's an excellent game) and somehow it surfaced that some minor development placeholder assets (which devs forgot to replace with actual ones due to QA oversight) were AI generated. Suddenly the entire game became "AI slop" and even got some of the awards revoked.
A lot of people complaining are doing it just for the sake of complaining, because anti-AI virtue signaling nets them clout, meanwhile they will happily scroll entire timelines of edited photos, movies which are nothing else than fake reality "slop".
You're inventing groups of people composed of the worst qualities of your "enemies" and insisting they are large in number, based on nothing. This is common low-quality internet "those people" complaining - the polar opposite of giving the benefit of the doubt.
People generally have nuanced opinions not represented solely by whatever Tweets are popular, and this is true of basically every single topic.
"Enemies" is your word, not mine. I would say "hypocrisy" is a better fit. A pinch of AI content is bad, while photoshopping/postprocessing/etc. is normalized. It's all converging into the same thing, only the process is different
There is a difference between an AI critic who dislikes the AI output based on their sense of taste/aesthetic/soullessness and someone who likes something until they learn that there's 0.0001% of AI content in it, which suddenly turns it into abomination. I agree that the latter tends to be the louder group, but it is a group nonetheless and I clearly did not invent jumping on a bandwagon.
Are people still able to do the things this article says you can do with Grok? I know that was the headline several days ago. I haven't really followed this story too closely to know.
I think whether or not you can still actively do this, there should likely be a consequence for the fact that you could ever do this. And pulling from the store for a proportional amount of time seems like a fair way to enforce that.
I don't think this explains why you would pull the article. The fact that it was ever correct is sufficient even if it's not currently point in time correct.
> certain groups of online warriors are convinced she is the one who is sick because of the "women are weak and can't do man work" trope.
Care to point to anything specific that leads you to believe this?
> So keep that in mind when people are demanding transparency.
Why should the (possible?) existence of online groups have any bearing on public policy like this? Probably for many policy decisions, we can find some online group that would spin it a certain way in their minds. That doesn't mean we let it influence our decisions one way or the other. Or to be precise, not any more than what the proportion of the voting population they make up would imply.
I don't disagree. Some users on here, though, are a little notorious, and my spidey sense went off given past interactions. One search on https://hn.algolia.com/ and here we are.
Persistence of memory—limited deletion of old comments, easy searching through archives—is a key feature of HN that distinguishes it from other forums.
I think it’s worth noting that he doesn’t believe that his mind has changed.
> Weight regain data are expressed as weight change from baseline (pre-intervention) or difference in weight change from baseline between intervention and control for randomised controlled trials. When analysing and presenting data from all studies, we used weight change from single arm trials, observational studies, and the intervention groups from randomised controlled trials. When analysing data from randomised controlled trials only, we calculated the difference in weight change between the intervention and control groups at the end of the intervention and at each available time point after the end of the intervention. When studies had multiple intervention arms, we treated each arm as a separate arm and divided the number in the comparator by the number of intervention arms to avoid duplicative counting.19
I was concerned about this too. Gemini informed me that the researchers "found that even when comparing people who had lost the same amount of weight, the rate of regain was significantly faster in the drug group (GLP-1s) than in the diet group (approximately 0.3 kg/month faster)."
Also, both groups contained those who didn't lose weight. They did not omit dieters who failed to lose weight or those who weren't "super responders."
Contrast this with taking the headline as fact without further scrutinizing it, which happens often. Or, look at the other posts here that are assuming that the cohort was restricted to only those who lost weight.
In an informal conversational context such as a forum, we don't expect every commentator to spend 20 minutes reading through the research. Yet we now have tools that allow us to do just that in less than a minute. It was not long ago that we'd be justified to feel skeptical of these tools, but they've gotten to the point where we'd be justified to believe them in many contexts. I believed it in this case, and this was the right time spent/scrutinization tradeoff for me. You're free to prove the claim wrong. If it was wrong, then I'd agree that it would be good to see where it was wrong.
Probably many people are using the tools and then "covering" before posting. That would be posting it as "fact". That's not what I did, as I made the reader aware of the source of the information and allowed them to judge it for what it was worth. I would argue that it's actually more transparent and authentic to admit from where exactly you're getting the information. It's not like the stakes are that high: the information is public, and anyone can check it. Hacker News understandably might be comparably late to this norm, as its users have a better understanding of the tech and things like how often they hallucinate. But I believe this is the way the wind is blowing.
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. What I meant was that, for example, before you might've needed to track down where to find the underlying research paper, then read through the paper to find the relevant section. That might've taken 20 minutes for a task like this one. Now you can set an LLM on it, and get a concise answer in less than a minute.
It matches my intuition. Long term change requires skill acquisition. What foods contain more calories than people realize? What foods are more satiating? What kind of portion sizes for each food will keep me from eating a surplus? How much snacking is too much? How does the amount of oil in the foods I eat change the equation? What does the non-drug-augmented sensation of stomach fullness tell me about when I should stop eating? Can I eat more slowly and stop at the right time? The list goes on.
How does this work with respect to using a remote? I know something like a Roku remote would work display-wise, but you usually program it to use the signal that the your brand of TV responds to. That way you can use the Roku/whatever remote to turn on the actual TV and control audio. Speaking of, how does audio work for this set up?
HDMI standards allow plugged in devices to control the power state of the TV. e.g. my Apple TV will turn the TV on when I press a button on the aTV remote and will turn the TV off when I turn the Apple TV off.
Audio is a separate challenge, I'm not sure what you'd do there. Do computer monitors have eARC outputs? None of the ones I have do. Again if you had an Apple TV you could pair it with a HomePod (or pair of them) to avoid the issue but that's a niche solution.
reply