As an Easter egg, I wonder if they can make it accept input in stdin and just discard it. If I was working there and didn’t mind burning some bridges (I’m not sure how many people would get wind of it as it’s quite obscure) I would be tempted to implement it.
It's fucking amazing sometimes how the Mac/iOS Photos app can't download a photo or small video for several minutes but you can easily watch YouTube on the same connection.
And it took Apple YEARS to give us a "Keep Downloaded" option for iCloud Drive documents in Finder.
And it's been years since I read any ebooks because the damn Mac/iOS Books app keeps removing my downloaded books even though I have several GBs of storage space left.
Goddamn Tim Cook and the other execs, do they even ever use their own products at all?
If you just want a histogram of all the chemicals that are present, that would probably be doable if not already done. But how would you even quantify/qualify the "sensations" of those senses?
Vision is "easy": What I see is what you see is what the machine sees.
A machine shows us what it sees and we can verify that it is working correctly, with a glance.
How would we verify that a machine smells or tastes "correctly"?
> a histogram of all the chemicals that are present, that would probably be doable if not already done.
I'm no olfactory biochemist, but that sounds like science-fiction to me. The, er, reference implementation we're talking about is advanced nanotechnology we don't fully understand.
While we can do stuff like mass-spectrography, that involves destroying complex chemicals and converting them to smaller fragments we can tally, and then guessing at possible configurations they might have originally had.
If someone had a device that could simply tell you the exact chemical formulas of all molecules of any kind in a sample, it would be used everywhere and they would be very rich.
You are right that such device does not exist, but in theory you could combine many analytical techniques to a single black box that could analyze practically all of molecules and particles in the air or even in more complicated samples. It would contain at least some sort of chromatography, nmr, mass spectrometer, infrared spectrometer and various special analytical techniques for some compounds. Also some kind of sample preparation system would be needed.
This would be a very large machine and you would need to provide a sample to it in a test tube or similar manner. Automated blood analyzers in hospitals are maybe the closest thing to a such device.
The machine smells correctly, when the same numbers (or similar when using some norm, e.g. the L2) appear for the same smell (reproducibility) and therefore a mapping (numbers -> smell) can be created. When this starts to exist (practically usable), there can be a database to store the mappings, allowing classification. E.g., the machine says "this tastes like banana". The machines/algorithms/products could itself be rated for precision.
I dont say such machines don't exist, but for my taste (pun intended) the solutions all lack something, either long term stability or having a second source supplier or being able to classify a reasonable amount of tastes or being able to distinguish between two tastes (or lacking all those things together).
My experience with AI so far: It's still far from "butler" level assistance for anything beyond simple tasks.
I posted about my failures to try to get them to review my bank statements [0] and generally got gaslit about how I was doing it wrong, that I if trust them to give them full access to my disk and terminal, they could do it better.
But I mean, at that point, it's still more "manual intelligence" than just telling someone what I want. A human could easily understand it, but AI still takes a lot of wrangling and you still need to think from the "AI's PoV" to get the good results.
But enough whining. I want AI to get better so I can be lazier. After trying them for a while, one feature that I think all natural-language As need to have, would be the ability to mark certain sentences as "Do what I say" (aka Monkey's Paw) and "Do what I mean", like how you wrap phrases in quotes on Google etc to indicate a verbatim search.
So for example I could say "[[I was in Japan from the 5th to 10th]], identify foreign currency transactions on my statement with "POS" etc in the description" then the part in the [[]] (or whatever other marker) would be literal, exactly as written, but the rest of the text would be up to the AI's interpretation/inference so it would also search for ATM withdrawals etc.
Ideally, eventually we should be able to have multiple different AI "personas" akin to different members of household staff: your "chef" would know about your dietary preferences, your "maid" would operate your Roomba, take care of your laundry, your "accountant" would do accounty stuff.. and each of them would only learn about that specific domain of your life: the chef would pick up the times when you get hungry, but it won't know about your finances, and so on. The current "Projects" paradigm is not quite that yet.
Why do people rag on TikTok? What the hell did you grow up on and did your parents and older folks from the previous generation not look down on that with a sigh or disgust??
Rock music? Rap? Video games??
In East Asia I see TikTok as pretty healthy, encouraging kids and even older people to be more active in public spaces, doing harmless dances or imitating other trends. It's actually pretty refreshing. Why you hatin?
Or is the West just salty that Facebook/YouTube/Instagram etc fell off as sterile in comparison?
I can actually remember when the consensus on HN was that TikTok was a novel, fresh experience that reminded them of the "old web" and its spark of creativity.
Now the consensus seems to be that it's a Chinese mind-control tool and it represents everything the misanthropes here hate about modern culture, the web and the generations that participate in it.
It seems to be exactly the same generational impulse as our parents railing against the "boob tube" and "devil music" or (to quote RMS) "(c)rap music." Although they weren't entirely wrong they weren't nearly as correct as they insisted they were. I suspect the same is true about the current moral panic around social media, and TikTok in general. Yes there are legitimate concerns, but it isn't the ontological evil people make it out to be either. It isn't actually controlling people's minds. It isn't actually more addictive than heroin.
And to answer NiloCK without another comment, what's worse will be "TikTok but everything is AI generated by the platform itself." Say what you will about TikTok, at least a lot of it is still human expression.
> Now the consensus seems to be that it's a Chinese mind-control tool and it represents everything the misanthropes here hate about modern culture, the web and the generations that participate in it.
If you drop the word "Chinese" and "misanthrope" I'm in board with your description.
For me the difference is exactly what the article is about. TikTok was the first to abandon even a pretense of being about communication and became all about content. Facebook and IG have went the same way and are barely better these days, but TikTok exemplifies the trend
Human thoughts and emotions aren't binary. I may love you but I may be too fucking busy with other shit to put in too much effort to show that I love you.
reply