I've never been able to type faster than 35 wpm and I have no idea why. I was taking the same typing lessons as the other kids in the 90s and have been writing code since high school. I can even solve a rubix cube in under 30 seconds. Feels bad man.
> Art is the product of someone expressing themselves.
While I agree, unfortunately to the majority of people, "Art" simply means "something that makes me feel something". Whether that thing was generated by a human or a machine makes no difference. In my experience most people, when consuming art, hardly think about where it came from/who made it/why they made it, simply on the feelings it evokes with themselves. And as we have seen through outrage algorithms, computers are quite good at figuring out how to create emotional states in humans.
I feel that on the other side of the spectrum is where things like idolization and parasocial fandom lies, so in my view, this is not unfortunate at all.
There are many flavors of this I can recall. One is voice acting in anime. I'd read episode discussion threads, and people would keep namedropping and discussing the voices behind the characters. Striked me and continues to strike me as just an extremely odd thing to do. As if these folks would go out of their way to ruin the immersion for themselves. Still, I don't mean to judge: they enjoy themselves whatever way they prefer.
Or recently I had a discussion with a coworker on being a fan of musicians and bands. He brought up an example that really surprised me: "so called fans will stare at you like a deer at headlights when you ask them: oh you're a fan of Linkin Park? what's their drummer called?". Or how there were so and so "cool" stories about some rock n roll musicians. These are beyond weird to me: I like (some of) their music, not them as individuals. I know nothing about them, nor do I really wish to or think I would be able to. (But then I'm also no "fan" of any musician in the sense my colleague described his idea of that: I feel completely uncompelled to be familiar with the entire discography of a band/artist, and especially to be obsessed with one in general.)
But maybe this is a generational difference. In any case, I'd be really hesitant to characterize this as just straight "unfortunate".
There's also a swath of cases where the expression in question is only a little more if even that than just a demonstration of someone's aesthetic or ideological preferences. I'm not sure how much art is in there - if someone were to call those expressions shallow, I'd likely agree. In which case, I'm not sure there's much to find unfortunate on this; it's only as unfortunate as much interest you (can) have in that person.
I've recently been presented the idea that art goes beyond its creator and involves its consumer(s) too. So basically, the expression goes beyond the one expressing, and includes those appreciating that expression.
But if we accept that, there's no need for the creator to be a person - since if you yourself are a person observing the art, the idea will still hold.
While I'd find this notion agreeable, I really don't subscribe to personhood being a requirement on either side of art to begin with. But maybe it's something worthwhile for your consideration.
I don't think it's right to downplay the disproportionate response the FBI had to Aaron's actions. He was initially being threatened with 50 years in prison and a $1 million fine, the stress from which sent his mental health spiraling and in no small way contributed to his suicide. I think the original point of the person you are responding to still stands.
System 1 and 2 are just another way of describing dual process theory, which existed long before Daniel Kahneman wrote, Thinking Fast and Slow, and is still the prevailing theory of mind in its category today. There were maybe 1 or 2 studies mentioned in that book that were not very replicable but other than that, the overall consensus by leading experts in that field is positive, from everything I've seen, which is impressive considering how old the book is now.
I have no idea if dual process theory is actually useful for teaching computers how to math, but it seems unfair to just dismiss it as pop science bunk.
> ...which is impressive considering how old the book is now.
The human mind hasn't changed all that much in the last ... countless millennia. If anything it'd be a quite concerning data point if we hadn't nailed down the introductory level points about how to be thoughtful.
The Wiki article you link gives an example from the 1600s of "the passions" vs "reason" so it certainly seems quite old. And when framed that way in particular has echos of "habitus" from sociology - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitus_(sociology) which I will paraphrase badly as "intuition [the passions] as shaped by social structure".
But all that seems largely descriptive rather than usefully predictive and more a representation of what we don't know than what we do.
Because maximizing both biological vectors of self-improvement and computing based avenues of skill acquisition is limited by the fact that it's a multi-objective optimization problem when you combine them together during maximization. Optimizing one de-optimizes the other. They, biology and computers, conflict with each other in fact. So, at best, you have to reach for a Pareto frontier.
And, it turns out, technology can't be trusted, as there is always some sort of black box associated with its employment. Formally, there is always a comprehension involved when it comes to the development and integration of technology into human life. You can't really trust this stubborn built-in feature of technological and economic success if you don't pierce through its secrets (knowledge is the power to counteract cryptographic objects). After all, it could be a malicious trojan horse that "basic common sense" insists on us all using for "bettering" our daily lives.
A very unfriendly artificial intelligence is trying to sneak through civilization for its own desires. And you're letting it just pass on by, as a result of your compliance with the dominant narrative and philosophy of capitalist economics.
This is pretty cool. Would it be possible to just stream the audio directly into Whisper, maybe using something like vlc, at x2 play speed to get the summary faster?
Probably, the openAI api got a lot better since I made that post, though if you stream audio at 2x speed you have to expect a drop in quality since on average most clips whisper is trained on are not at 2x
From the video it looks like they are just using a few mils of liquid volume. My question would be how well does this method scale up? Maybe waste water treatment plants could offset their carbon footprint a significant amount or even become a power plant if this technology gets better.
Most waste water treatment plants are already 'carbon negative' - since they're getting fossil-fuel-free turds and normally turn it into methane for energy generation.
On official charts, it shows as 'biogas' - although usually in statistics the biogas from waste water treatment processes isn't separated from the biogas generated from municipal landfills.
I was skeptical about your claim but I turns out that you are right! I knew about agricultural biogas production but never though about the potential of methane production from waste water treatment.
Even more surprising is that the generated biogas is used in the municipital gas supply in my town[1]. So I literally cook with fecal products.
