I think it has to be with expectations. Out of random music we don't expect much, so any result that is nice is good enough. For AI we are promised it's "just as good" but we get generic, soulless music that bring nothing new to the table.
Yeah, it's better than a lot of people, but it doesn't deliver the "just as good" part. On top of that you get that now anyone can promp a song and have a deluge of grey, tasteless elevator music.
So it has to do with our expectations (what we're promised) and with the fact anyone can make it? I get both points but neither seems to be about the music itself.
My exposure to AI music so far has been when I went to the local Japanese takeout to get udon. They had a big Midjourney-looking generated picture of Mount Fuji on the wall, with a cherry tree in front, and falling cherry blossom. It was full of completely unrewarding details that it was pointless to focus on, and the music they were playing was similar: endless soft love songs where each one was almost, but not quite, different from the one before, with lyrics about depending on someone and liking hugs.
This was actually preferable to genuine pop music, because it didn't demand much of my attention, and was closer to silence, which would have been perfection. But it wasn't communicating anything. Communicating is an imposition, and a risk.
I think in 90% of the galleries I've been in the I'm expecting the art to be communicating something so I'm inferring intent or making my own, but by itself art is a poor communication medium imo. So much so we often say it's about whatever YOU perceive from it. Obviously artists set out to invoke --something-- and we accept that and at least some of us try to think on it, but the person perceiving the art is really doing a lot of work to fill in the gaps. Expectations here are aligned.
Most art in stores is just filling space on a wall to bring things together visually. I don't know that anyone cares about it communicating anything other than "the space looks less empty and more appealing for the customer". I don't think the average store owner is thinking any harder than that on it. I guess my point being we're mostly subjected to it based on the perspective we will like it and its cheap.
I think my point is, that the expectation of the people placing the thing for us to view/listen to and our own can be mismatched. I've always viewed the shitty pop in department stores as an imposition on my ears and I've never spared a thought for most wall art in a random cafe, but I imagine the owners are hoping to get something out of it from us. Whether thats satisfaction or manipulating us to spend idk.
I can understand how generic AI slop or even random notes can be better than shitty pop music. If you don't expect it to rival your favorite artists, you won't be disappointed. If you've led to believe you'll listen to a masterpiece and it turns out to be slop or random notes, you'd be disappointed.
Right, but being annoyed by things is subtle, like a dripping sink or a fly in the room. It isn't doing any harm ... unless you really work on arguing for how the plumbing is slowly corroding or the fly is spreading disease ... but it's annoying because it's present, and you didn't plan on it being present. Why is the AI music here, growing in places unbidden, like fungus? That feeling of being exploited, and unable to stop it, can make an intrinsically inoffensive thing into an annoyance.
I get that. I just haven't really been exposed to AI music unless I wanted to be exposed to it, so it doesn't annoy me. I've read about how Spotify and similar services are full of AI music and how it's hard to sift through the slop, but I haven't used such services and mostly rely on (hopefully) human recommendations for what to listen to, so I've only found AI music when I've specifically searched for it. Kind of like if I wanted to study flies and went out of my way to find flies but if flies never came to my home unexpected or uninvited.
Sadly these are edge cases due to either a lot of hydro, which is terrible for the environment in most cases or having neighbors that buy the renewable and help stabilize the grid with conventional energy.
The best way to go green is still going green yourself. Get some panels, batery, inverter and go where no government wants you to go, off-grid. (And a gas generator, too, just in case...)
It's a 0-1 bet that resolves one way or the other. If you were able to place the bet, the liquidity is there. But, yeah, if you can't make the bet in the first place without significantly pushing the market then you won't make as much.
Once the capitalists get enough control of the government they rig everything for themselves. In a capitalist system money is paramount and they have the most of it, so their opinion is regarded higher than everyone else's. Once capitalists rig the system for themselves, the only way to get ahead is just pure luck or connections. Sine not everyone can be connected, luck is all that's left for most people, so it becomes a huge part of economic activity along with whoring and warring. See Also: OnlyFans, and the Department of War.
I think the main cause (that's actually quite anti-capitalist) is that banks and people at power have the ability to create money out of nothing, to lend the money into existence, while devaluing everyone else.
It was very interesting to me where I finally understood how banks (and the overall system) create money.
As a bank you start with 0 money, you lend 100 to some person that you "deposit" into their account at your bank. So now on your books you have 100 in liabilities (the money that the person has in your account) and 100 in assets (the money the person owes you). So accounting is balanced. You did not need money to start with, as a bank you just "lend it into existence".
Again, like I said, the capitalism you knew and loved is dead. When Bill Gates became the richest man in the world he had like $10 billion dollars. Today we are talking about trillionares now. As today's elites aspire to be able to own 1995 Bill Gates 100 times over, so yeah apparently he didn't have enough power back then.
Can you entertain the idea that someone several orders of magnitude more powerful than 1995 Bill Gates might have more effective control over the government?
Aren't you begging the question? You are saying that today's richest have more money (though you should probably adjust for gdp growth), and I agree. However, you are automatically concluding that they have more power?
It’s interesting take for sure. However it appears that in real life nowadays most millionaires are self made. I was surprised when I found out about it too. Seems to contradict your thesis.
> Once capitalists rig the system for themselves, the only way to get ahead is just pure luck or connections.
Don't you consider millionaires as ones getting ahead? If not then I've got to say - it's absolutely spectacular how rich did capitalism make everyone if millionaires are not even considered rich nowadays!
Yeah, that’s definitely corrupt. Doesn’t contradict the fact that people are generally richer than ever nowadays and that capitalism enables that, I don’t mind ultra rich getting richer as long as everyone else is also getting richer.
I don't think it does. Capitalism only allows one to save one's fruit of their labor to use down the line. You exchange it for money, then use that money to buy other stuff.
People using it to gamble has more to do with gambling people than with capitalism people. You can have gambling in communism or socialism, only stakes there are limited because the fruit of the labor of people doesn't belong to them like in capitalism.
I think you're mixing up capitalism with commerce. Commerce is where people buy and sell stuff. This is good. Capitalism is where capital is hoarded by an increasing smaller group of people. This is bad.
Look around you, the economy is aligning itself entirely around gambling. From bitcoin to nfts to the stock market to AI to art to dating apps to social media feeds to video games to venture capital to literal gambling apps infesting our phones ads sports. And finally we have actual members of the government gambling on policy.
The capitalism you grew up with is dead, the arguments for and against it are old and stale. That nature of what it is has changed. It's metastasized, devolved into something else entirely as the middle class is evaporating, the lower class is continually squeezed, billionaires become trillionaires, people are lighting warehouses on fire citing low wages as the proximal cause, and the President is ordering automatic SS registration as he threatens total civilization destruction.
This shit is not working and it's only going to get worse.
Those are diseases of morality, not capitalism. Someone who lights a warehouse on fire because they aren't paid enough is an immoral person. In a communist country they would be called a Wrecker and they'd face a firing squad for their actions.
Gambling, likewise, is a moral problem. It should be illegal or highly restricted and often was. Many other problems we face now could be fixed simply by reinstating laws that used to exist.
You and I probably have very different ideas about what is moral and what is not. For me, the highest moral crime is greed. A lot of people seem fine with it today. So for you to claim that the fire happened because of the poor moral character of the person who lit the fire, I can just as easily say this happened because of the poor moral character of the people who didn't pay him a fair wage, which leaves us nowhere.
That's why I focus on purely systemic arguments. The humans in the system are abstract. It doesn't matter if they are moral or not, they respond to systemic incentives. So if they're acting immorally according to you, why is the system incentivizing degenerate behavior instead of moral behavior?
there a lot of things that may be immoral but it is the system that promotes it or prevents it. our system promotes it (there are ads for kashi and fanduel on nickelodeon) so it is the capitalism
Welcome to my online guide on how to comply with the GDPR. Here we’ll cover the basics, the steps you should follow that will help everything else fall into place on your journey to compliance.
People signing up for newsletters (which this site has) then immediately submitting a SAR was an unsolved issue until ECJ finally ruled against it last month [0]. I think you're missing a few steps there. It would be nice if we lived in a world where legal compliance automatically conferred legal immunity.
A subject access request if you just have a mailing list sign-up would require you to provide the information in that mailing-list sign-up and information of how you have processed it. Nothing more, unless you in fact also store other information on a user behind their back.
So, no, it was not an unsolved issue: Just respond. The court case resolved the situation where a company didn't respond, but the request was potentially abusive. Nothing that and legitimate requests are both solved by simply responding.
It’s not clear to me which site “this” refers too.
> I think you're missing a few steps there.
I mean, yeah, I thought the format of the reply made it clear it was a joke. The larger point is that compliance isn’t that complicated and only becomes hard if you are invasive. When you’re not invasive it’s actually fairly simple.
> It would be nice if we lived in a world where legal compliance automatically conferred legal immunity.
It probably wouldn’t, because that would mean anyone violating the spirit of a law would be exempt from consequences by adhering to its letter.
I don’t recall any GDPR violation case which has gone to court. If you do, mind linking to it?
I’d gladly make this same argument in court, though. But I’ll never have to, at least not as a defendant, because I respect users’ data (by not even collecting it), so there’s nothing to take me to court over.
It looks to be a distinctly US American idea that everyone is always suing everyone for everything and always going to court. That’s not how the rest of the world operates for the most part.
As with most laws that are "useless in practice", this just opening the door and preparing/numbing the public to laws that will further extent control and censorship on internet and everywhere else.
I think only the US is not bombing anyone for the time being. I think, and hope, they will slowly pull out of there and not fuck up the status quo any further.
They don't have a way to reopen it without either a forever war in Iran or giving concessions to Iran to get it to open it. And an unsactioned, nuclear Iran is way worse than a booth toll in the strait.
Afghanistan was a 20 year long war. It was more costly in terms of troops, material etc.
Why would ending the war mean handing the world to the Iranian regime? That seems exaggerated. The iranians will charge a small toll for oil passing Hormuz, why would the US care? They have oil.
This isn't about the straight. It's about the Iranian-backed terrorists all over the region. It's about the genocides in Africa. Most of the horrible things in the world outside Ukraine are being instigated by Iran.
To me, in a path with no priority to the bike, the only danger are cyclist who think they have priority and can overtake people at speed.
Being able to get the attention of runners improves the situation, reducing the speed while circulating on a mixed path solves it completely. If you wanna go fast get on a bike lane or the road.
I don't quite follow, how slowing makes the problem of a runner jumping into the side of your bike go away? If anything it makes it more likely he or she will knock you off the bike since a slower moving bike is less stable and also increases the time you are in the danger zone next to a runner. And runners do jump between the lanes for no apparent reason.
It is. Actions go beyond what is minimally necessary to ensure security but without attacks from Hezbollah there would be no military actions in Lebanon. Israel doesn't attack Jordan or Egypt because they don't host Iranian backed militants who do attack. Lebanon will be in the same position if Hezbollah will be gone (which is not given).
Yeah, it's better than a lot of people, but it doesn't deliver the "just as good" part. On top of that you get that now anyone can promp a song and have a deluge of grey, tasteless elevator music.
reply