> It’s also OK to like what you like. She likes Suno jams. Great!
People like what they like, sure. And if someone was particularly into the idea of machines making music, or even take some cynical enjoyment out of this on the full understanding of what it is they are doing. Sure, whatever.
But someone acting like listening to AI generated music is their only choice due to their taste in music? Come on, that's a sci-fi nightmare right there. Not even going full-on ecologist here, but the resource expenditure alone is so out of whack for something only a single person will listen to.
I don't even consider myself a musician, just a human being baffled at the total lack of humanity and how that lack of humanity is being normalized. Talk about sympathy.
Is it though? Do you have calculation how much one suno song does? I work with databases, and I sometimes wonder how much energy those full table scans of the world consume, comparing to ai.
That's like saying that in order to not be stressed you can only read books that you write yourself. Are we seriously going to act like any of this is normal or healthy?
The technology aspect of it is not the problem. You can use the underlying technology of it in any number of ways, some of which could even be artistic.
We are talking about people who rather generate some random Suno songs instead of just searching for some playlists of which there are thousands upon thousands. There is something deeply dystopian about that.
Extrapolate this idea for a second: 10, 20 years from now, people generating their TV shows, their porn (including the illegal kinds), their music of dead musicians. That's individualism at its most extreme. Culture is a shared experience, you can talk to other people about the same music, same fiction, same art, because it's out there and exists in the world. When on the other hand people normalize consuming their own custom AI-generated culture, that shared experience is completely lost. At best you'll get a friend or two to watch your sitcom episode, it's not going to be a water cooler conversation at work.
I understand your points and I think there is a chance of this going wrong. Especially with the current incentive structure behind it. I personally hate smartphones because the incentive there is to get people's attention and sell it.
But without this incentives I could imagine a future where Smartphones where actually good and have a more positive impact.
But back to culture. I don't see the problem of people listening to their own created music. Even now a lot of people make e.g great photos just for them selves. As long as we don't force people to do so that's fine in my books.
Still if the incentives are bad, this can go very go wrong in very distopian ways.
This is extremely hyperbolic. The guy says he has a specific taste that chills him out. Why are you guys so judgmental?
I love me some Deleuze and Hegel, but my life is full of "interesting" bits already. Sometimes you need something simple. Your example is wrong as well: he did not create his own music, he directed it and yes I would definitely love to read a book about some weird sci-fi ideas I have written in some style I love but myself cannot reproduce.
OP never talked about art. Design is not art, it's problem solving. And good design according to Dieter Rams:
1. Good design is innovative
2. Good design makes a product useful
3. Good design is aesthetic
4. Good design makes a product understandable
5. Good design is unobtrusive
6. Good design is honest
7. Good design is long-lasting
8. Good design is thorough down to the last detail
9. Good design is environmentally friendly
10. Good design is as little design as possible
Generative AI just tries to predict based on its training data.
This take from a Hermione-type High School senior shed next to zero new light on the subject. Yes, we know AI is redefining school and jobs and daily life. The perspective of an obnoxious A+ type student isn't helping, especially because you kind of can read between the lines that she isn't friends with these kids using AI, which would give her a deeper perspective of why and how they are using AI.
Is this what The Atlantic has come down to, publishing a complain-y piece by the class president?
EDIT: For anyone struggling with my criticism of the article, I very much agree that there is a problem of AI in education. Her suggestion which is "maybe more oral exams and less essays?" I'm sure has never been considered by teachers around the world rolls eyes.
As for how to tackle this, I think the only solution is accept the fact that AI is going nowhere and integrate it into the class. Show kids in the class how to use AI properly, compare what different AI models say, and compare what they say to what scholars and authors have written, to what kids in the past have written in their essays.
You don't have to fight AI to instill critical thinking in kids. You can embrace it to teach them its limitations.
Struggling to understand what you're saying but it sounds like you're making two points:
* We should dismiss the concerns in TFA because the author is... A good and conscientious student? Who is both unpopular and also the class president?
* The students who are outsourcing their thinking, or at least their work, to LLMs, have good reasons for this and the reasons are not addressed in the piece
The first point is at best a pure ad hominem and at worst a full blown assault on conscientiousness and actually doing the work. I think the class president and good student is a better authority than the cheater. I'm very disturbed by the recent trend on HN and the wider world to justify any shortcut taken for personal advancement. We need people to value substance, not just image...
The second point is irrelevant -- we don't have do both-sideism in every piece. But also even if they do have good reasons to cheat, this creates an instant race to the bottom where now everyone must cheat. This is why they do doping checks in professional sports, except this is much higher stakes
I'm wondering why is this being published in the first place. It's not an interesting or illuminating perspective, it's a pretentious student telling us nothing new.
I gave no opinions on AI, yet I do think it's very much a problem. This article presents neither good ideas to tackle it, nor an insightful perspective on the problem.
The point of publishing it seems to me to be "kids in classrooms also think this is a problem". The subject matter is often talked about in the upper echelons and among adults, it's good to see a kid's prospective. It's equivalent to an essay by a kid saying they also struggle with the effects of social media -- it creates a broader consensus environment, helping to build buy in for a shared paradigm
Right, except what I'm saying is that the perspective of a this A+ kind of student is off-putting and not contributing to the discussion in any meaningful way.
What I'm saying is precisely that the take of a more genuine, less pretentious kid, would be far more insightful.
Well said. There are kids who're struggling no matter how hard they try, because the teacher's explanation was miserable, or because they have to actually work part-time for a living. These kids need AI. Without AI they could risk being on the street when they turn 18.
Later in life, when their life is more stable, these same kids will be the first to actually use AI to learn the then necessary concepts properly.
I agree we should create the kind of society that allows kids to focus on learning in school. I think just giving up on learning in school and turning it into pretend time where teachers pretend to teach while students pretend to learn is not a solution to any problem
Why does learning have to come only or even primarily from school? What sort of brainwashing is it that mandates it? Why can't a student also learn independently, made more possible by excellent books, online resources, peers, and of course AI? In dollar value terms, schools are an absurdly inefficient way to learn.
in the US, education is compulsory but every state has options for homeschooling. all you have to do is pass equivalency tests. your parents just have to be willing to jump through the hoops.
Don't outsource your thinking to the one article. Different kids use AI in different ways. Many use it to help them learn. We still are in the very early stages of kids using AI to learn.
It's the role of the teacher to be a good explainer and to assign written exams that are doable only in class and only without any electronic help. The kids should not share blame for the teacher's shortcomings.
plenty of straight-A students are in those same classes with miserable explanations or have jobs. plenty of kids who flunk out of expensive private schools and don't work. always have been since long before AI. nobody "needs" these tools. they're conveniences. it sounds more like your issue is with the timing and structure of impersonalized childhood education.
If you are in effect asserting that the quality of the instruction offered in class is considered pretty good, that is a failed assertion right from the get go. AI helps the student to make up for common failures in the quality of education.
you're operating from two assumptions that are not universally true, and the second only hypothetically addresses a symptom of the first but not the cause.
You can't imagine the revolution over anything arbitrary on the horizon? Kids will have to overthrow the lame Pleistocene technology we base AI on in order to survive. This tech is already DOA as a general tool, she's telling us this. If there's no excitement or joy in learning, the sector is moot.
The lack of imagination in CS is stunning and revolting. Symbols and causality are broken records, chuck them asap and move onto the next idea of what a PC is. It ain't binary.
ANY real kid that is unpretentious would do. A "I use AI to cheat at school" article would be far more interesting that this "Oh my God, my peers are hopeless but not me" piece.
I think this is a good point because "cheating at the work I have to do, as quickly as possible, well enough to not get fired" is the actual use case for AI for 99% of people.
All the stuff you see in this thread about how kids are going to use AI to bootstrap an education for themselves even better than what their teachers give them (not sure why there's so much hostility towards teachers) is a fantasy.
HN obviously overrepresents kids who were interested in tech things who may do something like that. The vast majority of kids will use AI as a tool to blurt out essays and coursework they don't read, so that they can get back to their addiction to TikTok and Instagram.
As will, of course, everyone using it at work. This is already the case. This is what AI is for. "Do this for me so I can scroll more".
If you're judging without even knowing the content of the hypothetical alternative then is the difference just that one premise offends you while the other supports you?
As some who loves dark mode, I hate that extension. I get the appeal of forcing every website to be dark mode, but that ends up breaking half of them or just making them look like trash. People need to custom design their dark modes for whatever each design is.
If you don't care about breaking design and stuff looking the way its supposed to, I guess the extension is fine but I rather use something like Stylus where you can use people's custom designed stylesheets for most known sites.
Even if this was technically possible with a standard subscription, I'm curious how you'd think trying to sell access would go, how seriously you think people whom you approach would take you, etc.
I share your frustration so I love that it is so fast/lightweight, cool project. I personally don't think I would have much use for a built-in terminal. I would just like for it to let you browse through whatever other images in the same folder from the image I opened with and be able to navigate it with the keyboard.
Images should also resize whenever the window is resized. Those two changes alone would make this very usable.
People like what they like, sure. And if someone was particularly into the idea of machines making music, or even take some cynical enjoyment out of this on the full understanding of what it is they are doing. Sure, whatever.
But someone acting like listening to AI generated music is their only choice due to their taste in music? Come on, that's a sci-fi nightmare right there. Not even going full-on ecologist here, but the resource expenditure alone is so out of whack for something only a single person will listen to.
I don't even consider myself a musician, just a human being baffled at the total lack of humanity and how that lack of humanity is being normalized. Talk about sympathy.