Open source is not only about being able to read the code: the open source definition includes "Free Redistribution" (anyone who has the software can give away copies, and get paid if they want) and "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor", among other requirements.
These two requirements combined make it impossible to distribute open source software with the provision that it is only free for individuals.
For the record, it happened yo me as well once. When I asked, it said it gave that location randomly. A small town around the world, random choosen and it is my town is very good probability I would say.
I tried to replicate it as well, could not.
İt happened when I asked for weather, maybe someone can replicate it.
I can only laugh at this statement. There are way many events where usa did act like an not trustworthy. Maybe you should start asking questions like “why my allies seeking external alliances, am I doing something wrong”
To add to your point, chess is relatively irrelevant vs other games. And there's a chance it is precisely because it is too simple. After all, human chess players have been beaten two decades ago. Dota 2 game and players were not (as of last try by OpenAI) - certain mechanics had to be removed to compete with the top players.
some of the comments on that thread are surprising. Are people not aware that software can be bundled in such a way as to run on machines not having internet access?
the background is this UI is the MotherDuck UI for their cloud SaaS app. MotherDuck is a VC-backed DuckDB SaaS company, not to be confused with DuckDB Labs or the DuckDB foundation
MotherDuck decided to take their web app UI and make it a locally usable extension via DuckDB. however as noted in that thread, the architecture is a bit odd as the actual page loads once the extension is running from MotherDuck’s servers (hence the online requirement)
I don’t think it’s intentionally malicious or bad design or anything, just how this extension came about (and sounds like they’re fixing it)
disclaimer: I do know and actively work with the MotherDuck folks, I’ve also worked w/ DuckDB Labs in the past
Internet is now filled with ai generated text, picture or videos. Like we havent had enough already, it is becaming more and more. We make ai agents to talk to each other.
Someone will make ai to generate a form, many other will use ai to fill that form. Even worst, some people will fill millions of forms in matter of second. What is left is the empty feeling of having a form. If ai generates, and fills, and uses it, what good do we have having a form?
Feel like things get meaningless when ai starts doing it. Would you still be watching youtube, if you knew it is fully ai generated, or would you still be reading hackernews, if you know there not a single human writing here?
Maybe in the short term, but I think ultimately there are lots of things Humans want (AI or no AI), and that means there's a lot of value to create in the world still. Which means there will still be jobs, just maybe not as much in the churning-out-websites-and-"content"-business.
Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to flippant about the potential for destroyed value here. Many industries (like journalism*) really need to figure this out faster, the advertising model might collapse very quickly when people lose trust that they're reading Human created and vetted material. And there will be broader fallout if all these bonkers AI investments fail to pay off.
[*] Though for journalism specifically it feels like we as a society need to figure out the trust problem, we're rapidly approaching a place of prohibitively-difficult-to-validate-information for things that are too important to get wrong.
Physical crafts and some niche software still.
Once robots are given opposable thumbs and large motion models get enough data, there will be nothing left. The tech is already there, just the matter of time. I'm counting on the human race to keep direct funding to software slop and delay that future, but damn China.
The subtext is the one technology capable of potentially rallying, unifying, and mobilizing the working class across the globe is lost in this design. Probably intentionally. A shame we couldn't rise up and do something about wealth distribution before the powers that be that maintain the world's status quo locked it down.
I’m definitely watching less YouTube because so much of my feed is now AI generated garbage. I only watch new videos from known human creators. My exploration of new creators is way down.
I really wish, but I doubt that. I will definitely move to that direction though. I am a professional software engineer, and seriously considering doing another job.
not because AI can take over my job or something, hell no it can't, at least for now. but day by day I am missing the point of being an engineer. problem solving, building and seeing that it works. the joy of engineering is almost gone. Personally, I am not satisfied with my job as I used to do, and that is really bothering.
The point of the form is not in the filling. You shouldn't want to fill out a form.
If you could accomplish your task without the busywork, why wouldn’t you?
If you could interact with the world on your terms, rather than in the enshitified way monopoly platforms force on you, why wouldn't you?
And yeah, if you could consume content in the way you want, rather than the way it is presented, why wouldn’t you?
I understand the issue with AI gen slop, but slop content has been around since before AI - it's the incentives that are rotten.
Gen AI could be the greatest manipulator. It could also be our best defense against manipulation. That future is being shaped right now. It could go either way.
Let's push for the future where the individual has control of the way they interact.
you are getting this from the wrong perspective. I agree what you say here, but things you are listing here implies one thing;
"you didnt want to do this before, now with the help of ai, you dont have to. you just live your life as the way you want"
and your assumption is wrong. I still want to watch videos when it is generated by human. I still want to use internet, but when I know it is a human being at the other side. What I don't want is AI to destroy or make dirty the things I care, I enjoy doing. Yes, I want to live in my terms, and AI is not part of it, humans do.
> I understand the issue with AI gen slop, but slop content has been around since before AI - it's the incentives that are rotten.
Everyone says this, and it feels like a wholly unserious way to terminate the thinking and end the conversation.
Is the slop problem meaningfully worse now that we have AI? Yes: I’m coming across much more deceptively framed or fluffed up content than I used to. Is anyone proposing any (actually credible, not hand wavy microtransaction schemes) method of fixing the incentives? No.
So should we do some sort of First Amendment-violating ultramessy AI ban? I don’t want that to happen, but people are mad, and if we don’t come up with a serious and credible way to fix this, then people who care less than us will take it upon themselves to solve it, and the “First Amendment-violating ultramessy AI ban” is what we’re gonna get.
Oh come on, are you 12? Real life doesn’t have narrative arcs like that. This is a real problem. We’re not gonna just sit around and then enjoy a cathartic resolution.
(Maybe skip the mini-insults & make the site nicer for all?)
Anyway I think GP has a point worth considering. I have had a related hope in the context of journalism / chain of trust that was mentioned above: if anyone can produce a Faux News Channel tailored to their own quirks on demand, and can see everyone else doing the same, will it become common knowledge that Stuff Can Be Fake, and motivate people to explicitly decide about trust beyond "Trust Screens"?
A more detailed analogy would be if you owning the robots meant that all food is now packaged for robots instead of humans, increasing the personal labor cost of obtaining and preparing food as well as inflating the cost of dinnerware exponentially, while driving up my power bill to cover the cost of expanding infrastructure to power your robots.
In that case, I certainly am against you owning the robots and view your desire for them as a direct and immediate threat against my well being.
And therein is the problem - if your robots take up so many resources I can't have my dishwasher, is that your right? Is your right to being happy more important than others?
The problem of resource distribution is solved by money already.
If I can't pay for the robots, I am not getting them. And if I buy my robots and you only get a dishwasher then you can afford two nice vacations on top while I don't.
Let's say we have a finite amount of cheap water units between us. After exhausting those units, the price to acquire more goes up. Each our actions use up those units.
If restrictions on water use do not exist, you can quickly use up those units and, if you can easily afford more units, which makes sense as you have enough for robots, you are not concerned with using that cheap water up.
I can't even afford to "toil" with my dishwasher now.
I've had this conversation a couple of times now. If AI can just scan a video and provide bullet points, what's the point of the video at all? Same with UI/UX in general. Without real users, then it starts to feel meaningless.
Some media is cool because you know it was really difficult to put it together or obtain the footage. I think of Tom Cruise and his stunts in Mission Impossible as an example. They add to the spectacle because you know someone actually did this and it was difficult, expensive, and dangerous. (Implying a once in a lifetime moment.) But yeah, AI offers ways to make this visual infinitely repeatable.
I'm quite sure that was how people thought about record players and films themselves.
And frankly, they were correct. The recording devices did cheapen the experience (compared to the real thing). And the digitalization of the production and distribution process cheapened it even more. Being in a gallery is a very different experience than browsing the exact same paintings on instagram.
I don't agree with this for two different reasons.
First: I don't think the analogy holds.
Recording a performance is not the same as generating a recording of a performance that never happened. To be abundantly clear, I'm not making an oversimplification generalization of the form "Tool-assisted Art is not Art actually", but pointing out that there's a lot of nuance in what we consume, how we consume it and what underlying assumptions we use to guide that consumption. There's a lot of low effort human created art, that IMO is in a similar bracket, but ultimately to me, Art that is worth spending my time consuming usually correlates with Art that has many many hours of dedicated labor poured into it. Writing a prompt in a couple minutes that generates a 20 minute podcast has a lower chance of actually connecting with me, so making that specific use-case easier is a loss for me. Using AI in ways that simplify the tedious bits of art creation for people who nevertheless have a strong opinion of what they want their artpiece to say, and are willing to spend the effort to fine tune it to make it say that, is a very valid, very welcome use-case from my perspective.
Second: Even if your premise that digitization devalued art is true, it doesn't necessarily imply it's something actually bad.
I have no intention to see the Mona Lisa in person, I'm glad I can check it out on the internet and know that I'm uninterested in it. You might think it has devalued it for me, and you'd be technically correct, but I'm happier for it. People have access to more art, and more information, that allows them to more accurately assess what they truly connect with. The rarity of the experience is now less of a factor in deciding the worth of it, which is a good thing because it draws me towards the qualities of it that matter more: the joy it could potentially provide, and the curiosity it could potentially satiate. Instead of potentially being railroaded into going to the circus because everyone seems to be raving about it, yet I have no idea what they do beyond what people say about it.
Of course there's a huge element of filtering bias on social media, because people still want their experiences to look and sound AMAZING after the fact. But at least with more information you have the potential to make a more informed decision.
> ultimately to me, Art that is worth spending my time consuming usually correlates with Art that has many many hours of dedicated labor poured into it
It might be true for you. But I highly doubt average people have any idea about how many or few hours were poured into the content they consume.
I've seen weebs who insists anime never utilizes rotoscope because "Japanese don't take shortcuts." My aunt questioned how anyone can make money from photo editing when a cousin of mine got married and had their wedding photos edited by a professional, because she thought it's just a few click on computer. People just don't know and they can be far off the marks in both ways.
Sure, but I did choose my words precisely for that reason. That's why I said it usually correlates with hours. Hours of labor put in is not the metric that makes art worth it to me, it's more a question of a skilled artist ensuring their message comes through, in the highest "resolution" possible, which requires a high amount of attention to detail, and usually requires a good amount of labor for the output to be interesting.
> If AI can just scan a video and provide bullet points, what's the point of the video at all?
Maybe, just maybe, the video format is being abused. Blogs are much more time-efficient. Frankly, every time I see some interesting topic linked to a video, I just skip it. I don't have the time or will to listen to some "content creator" blabbering to increase their video length/revenues. If I'm REALLY interested, I just use some LLM to summarize it. And no, I don't feel bad for doing this.
I think the future is probably that basically everything gets linked to an ID either directly or indirectly. If you get caught out using bots or spamming you'll end up ID banned from services.
I was just talking about this same thing with someone. It's like emails. If, instead of writing an email, I gave AI some talking points and then told it to generate an email around that, then the person that I sent it to has AI summarize it.... What's the point of email? Why would we still use email at all? Just either send each other shorter messages through another platform or let LLMs do the entire communication for you.
And like you said, it just feels empty when AI creates it. I wish this overhyped garbage just hadn't happened. But greed continues to prevail it seems.
LLMs are basically only useful when they can utilise public information. They are great for answering questions because the answer to your question can be pulled from wikipedia and reddit. They are completely useless for writing emails because they don't have any more info than you give them. The only thing they can do is fluff them out with nothingness, when the receiver is than AI summerising to strip out.
Because email is spammed with marketing. If you send me an email at work there is a good chance I won't see it because I got 20 emails from every SaaS product news letter flooding the inbox. If you send me a message on slack there is a 100% chance I will see it.
That is kids choice then, I just want to live with my own choice. I missed the day when you have no doubt about the person sending a message to you is a human
> And with outdoor places getting more and more rare/expensive, they’ll have no choice but to consume slop.
What does this mean? Cities and other places where real estate is expensive still have public parks, and outdoor places are not getting more expensive elsewhere.
They also have numerous other choices other than "consume whatever is on the internet" and "go outside".
I don't think anyone benefits from poorly automated content creation, but I'm not this resigned to its impact on society.
The only solution I see is taxes going to fund outdoor in person spaces. As a society we very easily can afford these spaces, it's just that the people who need them most are the ones least able to pay for things.
Banning social media for kids alongside funding free or subsidised in person environments will be a huge benefit to society.
Awesome, this takes Whispering from something I'd probably not bother with to something I'd consider integrating into my daily workflow. Thanks very much for the tool!
It’s not very clear, rather just a small mention. Given OP’s extensive diatribe about local-first, the fact that it prefers online providers is quite a big miss tbh.
Yeah I agree, I neglected to update the docs and demo. This post was made anticipating the local transcription feature to drop earlier but it took some time due to some bugs. Before, the default option was using Groq for transcription, but that was admittedly before I figured out local transcription and wanted something to work in the meantime. Will be changing local as the default strategy in the documentation.
like you give 2 cpu. 8gb memory for 20vms. Which I believe you wont be able to use 20 of them at the same time if they share 2 cpu only
reply