That's a bit of a false comparison - does this font significantly improve your quality of life comparably to a cheaper/open source font? Is this font really that much better than Jetbrains mono?
Why not pay $10,000 for a font if you are spending 8 hours a day looking at text? Probably because that's a obscene price to pay for a font.
I think the problem is that competition in this area is fierce, so as soon as I see a font like this with such an expensive personal use license - my first thought is - is this really going to be a unique experience compared to the quality of open source fonts?
Yes - fonts arent free - and obviously they're going for a market that will want to spend $250 on a personal font - but if so, I don't think the marketing works for achieving this
I think whenever a blog post begins to sound like a marketing campaign from versace - it's always a great sign that it may be LLM generated.
This isn't just a comment. It's a an experience. A shared cognition between parties -- To collaborate & exchange ideas. It's not procrastination, it's culture. Culture is what builds civilization.
I think the fable it's referring to is the "Emperor has No Clothes" - if this is even slightly similar to the Mythos hyped up to be too intelligent to release, I'm quite disappointed.
If this was a step change, e.g a Opus 5, I'd be pleased, it's definitely an upgrade on some work, but it's nothing like anthropics apocalyptical marketing seemed to suggest
Doesn't work too well on desktop either! This is decent but it's also an early hackathon set-up - this is something that you can set up on a sonnet model fairly easily (without the weird CSS slop that anthropic models seem to love).
I'm not very threatened by this if this is the dangerous Mythos model - it just seems like a slightly incrementally better sonnet
Not to get too reductive - but LLMs are essentially performing massive number-crunching at a textual representation level. If you've ever played around with early NLP models, they can give you some astounding results for aspects like sentiment analysis that would seem like creative problem solving to someone in 1950. You could say the same for using a neural network to perform things like object recognition.
That's not removing the amazing ability of LLMs and the scale of this accomplishment, don't get me wrong - it's incredibly impressive that specialised models are now able to walk down pathways for creative problem solving - but I don't think that suggests a sentience or profoundness - rather it's just number-crunching at a astronomically larger scale.
I mean we've been using technology to solve long-standing problems in mathematics that no human had been able to do for years. Is Deep Blue sentient because it can beat any human at chess?
Yeah agreed - Just as a future context I tend to close out of articles quickly if they have an AI generated image. Highly reccomend something like Unsplash or Comsos.so - They both have some brilliant visuals, especially public.work - cosmos.so/public-work
Even old archives are great to search for visuals and shows the passion that you've put in to the writing.
I'm sorry - but you're not going to ban AI no more than you can ban the transistor. You could limit & limit the potential of who uses it - but historically that seems to benefit the few rather than the many.
But given your example - I don't care much for the opinion of someone who believes flu is spread by sinful thoughts. It's good to have a base understanding of something that you'd like to speak about.
Are local LLM models also within this hate sphere? What about fully open source vision models? That's what makes an article like this feel hollow - it's just someone talking about vibes.
Or to quote the article:
" But while I took mental notes on what I was observing, I also felt a lack of representation for true, profound, and guttural loathing of AI. The people like me who have only the vaguest idea of what defines AI, but extremely specific examples of why it sucks. "
That's why I think this article is a criticism of neoliberal capitalism rather than anything else. If it wasn't AI, it would be robotics, if it wasn't robotics, it would be Quantum. But i'd like to see better substance in articles on this site rather than just a dislike of robots.
There's a massive difference between the hatred of a CEO who is actively wanting to replace workers with what is essentially applied mathematics. AI seems more like easy reasoning for mass-layoffs & cost saving measures - and I rarely see articles that actually attempt to delve into this, instead seeking to just cancel out an entire technology.
This article doesn't hate AI - it hates capitalism - which is a completely different argument, the underlying system was broken already, AI has just excasperated some of the concerns. Things like awful SEO + low effort art were already happening beforehand, they're just become far easier.
And maybe a big problem is that AI = ChatGPT for the vast majority of people, including the person who wrote this artcle.
This article specifically cites things like the Commonwealth Prize - a prize that if you look at historically, wasn't exactly an example of brilliant prose. Surely that's far more of a inditement on the quality of judging for a prize if it can be won by poor writing.
A lot of the issues cited within this article just seem hollow, as they're issues that were pervasive before ChatGPT. AI isn't a panacea, but hating a technology because bad people use it feels reductionist.
I think a far bigger problem is that the majority of the population doesn't have good knowledge of AI or Software in general, including CEOs. I'd love to see journalists that have a good understanding of the actual technology.
Not sure about this one - my slightly terrible portfolio website that i'm in the process of completely revamping (bemben.co.uk) managed to mog simon wilsons webblog (https://simonwillison.net/) - which is a far better website in all aspects!
Maybe introduce some additional stats like load times, content analysis etc - and tweak the prompt slightly - just because a website looks slightly newer, doesn't mean it's better at all!
I suppose in spirit of the article - it's as if the manhattan project in 1944 was telling the world that theoretically it's 6-12 months away from igniting the entire upper atmosphere.
I'm sure eventually i'll eat my words - but Quantum still seems like a massive marketing gimmick. The technology itself is incredibly interesting, but it feels as if CERN began advertising itself as a marketing stunt - there's just something about the way I see quantum marketed + advertised right now that doesn't seem to align with reality.
I guess that's partially my original point summarised; I'd like to see this criticism levied at the apps advertising it - rather than using something that doesn't