It isn't a generational thing. The choice of emoji is a generational thing, but people of all ages do it. AI most certainly does not use emoji in the same way a young person does (unless you encourage it to, but even then it comes across as cringeworthy). If anything it's closer to how a middle-aged person uses them.
I'd also say the use of text emoticons has all but died out in anything other than ironic usage, or in situations where it's difficult to use unicode emoji (e.g. games or this very site)
When text is very obviously generated by AI it communicates to the reader that there is nothing of value to be read. It always writes in the same vapid, overly enthusiastic, overly verbose way. It's grating and generally conveys very little information per word. It's a cliché at this point, but if nobody bothered to write it then why would I bother to read it?
There is a 0% chance that the vast majority of this site and the repo that was linked elsewhere was written by a human. I would have zero confidence in anything about this language, and frankly your former colleague should be embarrassed about putting this out.
Edit: I just noticed in another comment: "Perfect for : Trading systems, industrial control, Medical devices, aerospace applications". I'd go further than embarrassed, and say this person should be ashamed of themself and take this down.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying but applications like this tend to be horrible to use. How do you handle somebody navigating in two tabs at once? What about the back button?
I guess they use something like sessionStorage to hold tab specific ids.
But something that can bite you with these solutions if that browsers allow you to duplicate tabs, so you also need some inter-tab mechanisms (like the broadcast API or local storage with polling) to resolve duplicate ids
If this was enough to temporarily replace breathing I wonder how that would feel if you were otherwise healthy. I imagine not breathing would instinctively feel quite strange and even distressing.
It would be quite distressing because of the accumulation of CO2 in the blood, even with completely adequate oxygenation delivered intrarectally. The slight change in acid-base balance is what makes a person feel the need to breathe, and CO2 is an acidic byproduct of metabolism. This is why people with metabolic acidosis (e.g. in diabetic ketoacidosis or sepsis) have an increased respiratory rate.
Would CO2 still build up if someone isn't breathing at all? I'm guessing so, since you say CO2 is a byproduct of metabolism. Alternatively, could respiration exhaust enough CO2 even in a situation where the lungs are too damaged to take in sufficient oxygen?
All that apart, I'm guessing this would be used in emergency situations, where a patient is likely already unconscious and could be kept under sedation until transferred to ECMO. Is CO2 buildup dangerous on its own? If so, in what kind of time-frame? What's the upper limit on the additional minutes this therapy could buy?
In an acute situation where oxygenation isn't sufficient, the imminent threat of anoxic brain injury and end-organ dysfunction is the concern. Measures would obviously be taken to correct that, up to and including rapidly sedating and paralyzing a patient in order to mechanically ventilate them with an increased fraction of inhaled oxygen and/or additional pressure (PEEP) to increase the surface area in the alveoli available for gas exchange.
Respiratory acidosis (i.e. the accumulation of CO2 and acidification of the blood due to inadequate breathing) is generally not harmful on its own, the concern there is just adequate oxygenation. However there are metabolic causes of acidosis, usually due to lactic acid accumulation, which lead to end-organ dysfunction because lots of enzymatic reactions in the body expect a very narrow pH range to work effectively. This occurs over a period of days, though.
So, it sounds like if this works (big if, of course, at this point), sedation + an enema could be a better "bridge" to mechanical ventilation than CPR. That would be amazing (if it works); science fiction stuff.
I would disagree for a few reasons, at least for its application to cardiac arrest. It might have some niche applications, but that's only speculative.
The main determinant of successful CPR is maintaining coronary perfusion pressure with unrelenting chest compressions so that the heart has a fighting chance at starting to beat normally again. Moving the blood so that it has enough pressure at the aorta where the coronaries branch off of is way way way more important than keeping it oxygenated, which we're already pretty good at. In fact, over-oxygenation in CPR has been shown to be detrimental to outcomes because it causes oxidative stress at the cellular level. Oxygen is nasty, it's amazing that life evolved to harness it.
I do agree that modern medicine (especially emergency medicine) is really cool, that's why I switched careers after working in software engineering. We have lots of tools at our disposal, it's already science fiction. Modern resuscitation involves drugs that manipulate the ion channels of the heart in various ways, we can shift fluids around by changing the osmolarity of IV fluids (and we can pump them into you through your bones after drilling into them if needed...), cardiac monitors and AEDs will time a shock just right depending on the dysrhythmia to increase the odds of success, we can even just repeatedly shock a heart to make it beat in some situations like an AV block. And that's just the stuff that they let paramedics do (i.e. trained monkeys, I am one).
In my thoracic surgery rotations in med school I was taught that the strongest stimulus for increasing the respiratory drive was the acidification of cerebrospinal fluid. Which, of course, correlates with the blood pH. This information comes from some studies in the 60s with goats, and the old guard are happy to hang their hat on it.
There are also chemoreceptors for oxygen concentration in the circulatory system as well.
I think everything you have said is correct, I just wanted to add a few more details for anyone who is interested.
From the littlei know from a breath holding workshop I did awhile ago (for trying to get into freediving) it's the carbon dioxide build up in our blood that gives us the urge to breath, and not the lack of oxygen. If this method allowed for the removal of carbon dioxide from the blood then holding your breath might not even be discomforting.
The acid base balance of the cerebrospinal fluid is the primary driver of the respiratory drive, like allude to with your comment on the CO2. I did want to add that the lack of oxygen can affect respiration, which is detected by the peripheral chemoreceptors, like in the carotid bodies.
Additionally, the thoracic stretch receptors are important for respiratory drive, where the lack of expansion of the chest will promote respiration. When a healthy young person holds their breath for short periods, say 30 seconds or so, their blood CO2 and O2 are not much different, but they still will have to fight the instinct to breathe!
Something to think about (hah!) is there are people without an internal monologue i.e. no voice inside their head they use when working out a problem. So they're thinking and learning and doing what humans do just fine with no little voice no language inside their head.
It's so weird that people literally seem to have a voice in their head they cannot control. For me personally my "train of thought" is a series of concepts, sometimes going as far as images. I can talk to myself in my head with language if I make a conscious effort to do so, just as I can breathe manually if I want. But if I don't, it's not really there like some people seem to have.
Probably there are at least two groups of people and neither really comprehends how the other thinks haha.
I think there are significantly more than 2, when you start to count variations through the spectrum of neurodiversity.
Spatial thinkers, for example, or the hyperlexic.
Meaning for hyperlexics is more akin to finding meaning in the edges of the graph, rather than the vertices. The form of language contributing a completely separate graph of knowledge, alongside its content, creating a rich, multimodal form of understanding.
Spatial thinkers have difficulty with procedural thinking, which is how most people are taught. Rather than the series of steps to solve the problem, they see the shape of the transform. LLMs as an assistive device can be very useful for spatial thinkers in providing the translation layer between the modes of thought.
Are the particles that make up thoughts in our brain not also a representation of a thought? Isn't "thought" really some kind of Platonic ideal that only has approximate material representations? If so, why couldn't some language sentences be thoughts?
> The landscape itself doesn't capture anything, it just is.
Sure, but the landscape is something, namely an aggregate of particles. A thought in principle isn't its physical expression, but its information content, and it's represented in a human brain by some aggregate of particles. So no matter how you slice it, thoughts can only manifest within representations, and so calling language a representation of thought isn't some kind of dunk, because it also proves that human brains don't have thoughts.
It's not clear whether the information content of all possible human thoughts can be captured by language, but clearly at least some language expressions have the same information content as human thoughts.
We are paying the price now for not teaching language philosophy as a core educational requirement.
Most people have had no exposure to even the most basic ideas of language philosophy.
The idea all these people go to school for years and don't even have to take a 1 semester class on the main philosophical ideas of the 20th century is insane.
LLMs clearly think. They don't have a sense of object permanence, at least not yet, but they absolutely, indisputably use pretrained information to learn and reason about the transient context they're working with at the moment.
Otherwise they couldn't solve math problems that aren't simple rephrasings of problems they were trained on, and they obviously can do that. If you give a multi-step undergraduate level math problem to the human operator of a Chinese room, he won't get very far, while an LLM can.
So that leads to the question: given that they were trained on nothing but language, and given that they can reason to some extent, where did that ability come from if it didn't emerge from latent structure in the training material itself? Language plus processing is sufficient to produce genuine intelligence, or at least something indistinguishable from it. I don't know about you, but I didn't see that coming.
They very clearly do not think. If they did, they wouldn't be able to be fooled by so many simple tests that even a very small (and thus, uneducated) human would pass.
This is absurd to the point of being comical. Do you really believe that?
If an “objective” test purports to show that AI is more creative than humans then I’m sorry but the test is deeply flawed. I don’t even need to look at the methodology to confidently state that.
It’s a point, I suppose, about being clear about what we mean. In psychology, we need to define terms in terms of measures — and we’ve traditionally measured human creativity that way. Not without critique, but true!
His comment must be fueled by his own lack of creativity. He has engulfed himself in the AI, and his own knowledge gap prevents him from even scratching the surface of his own stupidity.
> I absolutely cannot fucking stand creative work being referred to as "content". "Content" is how you refer to the stuff on a website when you're designing the layout and don't know what actually goes on the page yet. "Content" is how you refer to the collection of odds and ends in your car's trunk. "Content" is what marketers call the stuff that goes around the ads.
Wait until they coopt the word "art" to include AI-generated slop. I dread the future discussion tarpits about whether AI creations can be considered art.
It happens quite often, yes. They are concept artists and designers but they share their own stuff. And just now I opened up Discord and skimmed through some art, pixel art and drawings channels in the many servers I'm in and saw a lot of art that I doubt anyone is trying to sell. People just love to share their creations.
Yes if you are friends with and deeply networked with professional artists and designers, you'll see a lot more hobby art. Most people are not friends with even one (never mind several) professional artists though.
This scenario is irrelevant to my main thesis anyway, which is that people principally do not develop artistry to the levels required for strangers to care about it without doing so as a professional pursuit.
That you get to see the exhaust and byproducts of such a professional pursuit isn't a point against it.
Via Instagram, while they're showing off pictures of their kids and their hobbies... yes? Do you show only your coworkers, what, system diagrams of work things making the between work times still also about work?
Different places have different cultures, apparently your coworkers aren't to know anything about you beyond what's necessary for them to work with you, but across the whole world, not everywhere is like that, and it seems unnecessary to state that you don't live in such a place in that way.
Most independent artists will disagree with this statement. They do it for passion, to communicate, to tell stories, to fulfill their own urges. Some works incidentally hit a sweet spot and become commercial successes, but that's not their purpose. On the other hand, the 'art' you see being marketed around you is made specifically to be marketed and sold, with little personal connection to the artist, and often against their own preferences. That's "content".
Is that what they tell you when you’re standing in the gallery with a checkbook? Or in the boardroom with a signature?
No, you almost never see art that wasn’t meant to be sold. Public art pieces are commissioned (sold), art in galleries were created by professional artists (even if commercially unsuccessful) 99.99999% of the time.
Surely if this wasn’t true, you could point to a few specific examples of art — or even broad categories of art — that weren’t made to be sold and that you have personally seen?
I think you're just interpreting the meaning of "made to be sold" very literally. Of course artists want to make a living and have their art be appreciated, so they expect pieces to be sold; but that is not the main motivation behind making the art, where commercial "art" - advertising, mainstream cinema, pop music, most art galleries, anime, 80% of what you see in arts and crafts fairs, pieces in IKEA - is created with profit as the main motive.
Going back to the origin of this, stating that Ghibli style videos generated with SORA (which the OP initially called "content") are equivalent to Studio Ghibli movies because they are both "art made to be sold" would be wild. A film like Spirited Away took over 1 million hours of work, if making money was the main goal it would have never happened.
> Of course artists want to make a living and have their art be appreciated, so they expect pieces to be sold
"they want their to be appreciated, so they expect pieces to be sold" is a clever trick but one is not related to the other. One could want their art to be appreciated and never sell it, but virtually no one would see this art for a variety of reasons including the fact that marketability increases visibility and that there is very, very little amateur art that is worth looking at, much less promoting to a larger audience.
It seems you agree that in fact art (that anyone sees) is overwhelmingly made to be sold.
I didn't say anything about their "main motivation" and neither you nor I (nor even the artist, frankly) could say much about what someone's main motivation is.
What we can say is that nearly all of the art anyone sees was in fact made to be sold, which is the specific claim that I made.
I don't think any supposes it does. They're arguing that the word choice implies something about the speaker's value system and the place that art or human culture has in it.
While I have no opinion on the "holy grail" part, I think them varying massively is the point.
A lot of locks require a bit of finesse as well, like pulling the door towards you or pulling the key out just the right amount, which would be an interesting challenge. Especially if the technique isn't known ahead of time. Given enough time (and frustration), people can generally figure the "finesse" aspect out for a lock.
We actually have notes taped on two of our doors, with instructions of how to get the locks to line up depending on the season. Another door requires a hard shove during the summer, and a slight pull back during the winter. Someday we'll replace that door with a metal door and get it framed nicely. But we've been saying that for 12 years!
> While I don't disagree, I find that small speakers are dramatically better today than they were even 15 years ago.
Then why is what comes out from my "modern" soundbar so crappy compared to the one I bought 15 years ago?
I had to retire my ancient soundbar because it had Bluetooth without security and would regularly pump out 100db of some show that our neighbors were watching at random times.
However, the sound quality was vastly better than any soundbar I can buy now--even my wife complained about the soundbars we tried--they were that obviously worse. I had to suck it up and buy a full blown sound system to match a stupid cheap-ass JBL soundbar from 15 years ago.
JBL is unfortunately one of the brands that people buy nowadays and think of as "good". Well already was a thing 8 years ago... Please do not buy JBL nowadays. Its crap made for being thrown away after a few years. Real speakers are repairable usually. The expensive ones we sold even had 70 year - lifetime warranty. Its true that old speakers often have really good sound though. A lot of it is mechanical which didn't change a lot in the last decades. Modern speakers have electronic shenanigans that might work, but doesn't provide a noticeable difference in my opinion. Except for noise canceling.
No argument. All the "modern" JBL soundbars were just as crappy as the rest of the "modern" soundbars.
I remember buying that soundbar (back at Fry's!) and all the soundbars were pretty much just as good (well, the Bose ones were garbage and overpriced, but let's not get started about that ...). They weren't audiophile quality, but they were good enough that an amateur like my wife really couldn't tell much difference.
What the hell happened that caused soundbars to go to shit?
Soundbars in the past were a niche market for people with expensive Plasma screens so they had to appeal to that group.
Soundbars today are a cheap addition to make up for the horrible sound on everyone's cheap $300 LCD 65 inch TV that in addition to horrible sound looks worse at 4k than the 720 Plasma did.
I'd also say the use of text emoticons has all but died out in anything other than ironic usage, or in situations where it's difficult to use unicode emoji (e.g. games or this very site)
When text is very obviously generated by AI it communicates to the reader that there is nothing of value to be read. It always writes in the same vapid, overly enthusiastic, overly verbose way. It's grating and generally conveys very little information per word. It's a cliché at this point, but if nobody bothered to write it then why would I bother to read it?
reply