I might. I'd be interested to see how it sounded.

One of the people making those songs used to be in a band who got a few singles in the top 40 years ago. Now he doesn't need a band because he can write songs, have the AI perform them and mix them himself. It's allowed him to produce many of his songs that otherwise would never have existed.

"Creative" is just midwitslop they use to pretend that somehow they're creative and the plumber figuring out how to fix your leaking toilet at 3am without having to rip the walls apart isn't. There hasn't been a lot of creativity in Big Label pop music for decades.

And that's what this is really telling us: most pop music has been slop for most of my life, and AI can create infinite slop.

I've bought several AI-generated songs on iTunes and a few more that might be AI-generated. Who cares if it's a good song?

And that's what the "Major Labels" are scared of. They're used to being able to control which music makes it and which doesn't, and now anyone can make songs at home and sell them online. They're desperate not to lose the near-monopoly they've had for decades, which pretty much gave them a license to print money.

Except they still do it. That was just a glaring example that sprang to mind.

Another example more recently is going around in circles trying to find out how to change some setting because the "AI" (Google, Bing, whatever) pulls instructions from two years ago and the UI has completely changed since then. Or maybe it just made up UI features that never existed.

Oh yeah, and then there was Copilot recently, I asked it to suggest an app which would do something, it told me there were two free Microsoft apps which would do it, I downloaded them, neither would do it, I told it that and it basically said "Oh, sorry, I made that up."

Except the answer is often wrong.

For example, last year I was looking for info about a library that some old software we maintain every decade or so uses. The "AI" told me it was deprecated, but when I actually went through the search results it turned out there was some other library of a similar name which was now deprecated and end-of-life.

Without the search results you can't check to see whether what it told you us is true or misinterpretation or just plain made up.

... why they're teaching these models to know how to make cocaine, nerve gas and bombs?

I believe the argument is that radio frequency is a limited resource and therefore the Feds must ensure it's used to the public benefit. So magically the First Amendment doesn't apply.

This ends up meaning that stations which support whatever the current government is can do what they want and station which oppose risk losing their license. Regardless of who is in charge.

90% of what the Federal government does is unconstitutional (including the FCC) and most of that was put in place by Democrats.

The Constitution has been toilet paper since the Civil War.

Soon to be followed by political beliefs, religious beliefs, criminal record, income, credit score, social credit score, etc.

Nothing could possibly go wrong.

It's much easier to be a lawyer when you're allowed to just make stuff up like LLMs do.

The greatest misallocation of capital in history. Meanwhile we have customers running systems which do real, important work who are putting off upgrading old hardware because the price is insane for replacements due to people making funny cat videos.

Ah, but they'll just get a future AI to maintain the code, so it doesn't matter that it's a pile of spaghetti that no human has ever understood.

Some of the people I work with have been getting the AI to write the code and then periodically getting it to refactor everything into something that isn't a pile of spaghetti, but if you do that then suddenly you lose much of the supposed productivity gain of letting the AI write the code.

I'm mostly working on a project with a million lines of C++ and Python code, much of which is 20 years old. It's very useful to be able to ask the AI to explain how some feature in the code works because it can usually figure that out in halt the time I'd take... though sometimes it will come up with some completely wacko explanation and I have to ask it 'are you really sure about that?' so it will go and take another look and figure it out.

And for code where I know how the changes should look I can typically tell it what needs to be done at a junior-dev level and it will go off and do it much faster than a junior dev would.

Today I was estimating the time required for a bunch of bugfixes and was able to get it to do the grunt-work of analysing the code to verify that I hadn't missed anything important that would blow the budget. It also found some danger areas where we really shouldn't change the code if we didn't have to (because the system has to stay up as close to 24/7 as possible and the change would require an outage) so I gave it an alternate plan instead.

It's definitely useful, but we're only seeing maybe a 10% increase in productivity on average because most of our time isn't spent touching the code.

It's also nice at home to be able to tell my slow local AI setup to make some changes to my personal code and come back an hour or two later when it's done.

If the key is randomly-generated and securely destroyed and they use some common believed-secure algorithm like AES then there's not enough time or atoms in the universe to brute-force it.

Because:

1. Rhetoric.
2. We know what kind of people will want to wear glasses that record 24/7.