Fun part: you can tell properly trained AI to give generated piece "a sense of the personality and mood of the specific performer". Today, 4/5 times it will be successful in doing so, provided it had enough of performer's works to learn from.

At this point, there are two kinds of successful artists.

Those that tell you that they use AI to assist with their craft, and those that lie about it.

Because the amount of extra work that needs to be done to without AI is ridiculous at this point. Add to this the part where AI provides several unique services that humans cannot deliver in time frames that aren't thousands to tens of thousands of times longer, allowing for rapid iteration on concepts that would be impossible otherwise, and today you no longer can be successful without it.

The only difference today is how much of it is used, for what parts, and what specific model.

I think the best term for AI luddites such as yourself is "AI Vegans".

Like vegans, you know a tiny sliver of reality, and make it your whole world. Like vegans, we don't need to know you're like this, because you'll tell us. Like vegans, you're wrong on almost everything. Like vegans, you believe your faith makes you a higher form of being, and those who disagree just "are lesser" i.e. "do not understand math".

Like vegans, you'll mostly go away in a decade or two.

It's actually the opposite. It was stagnant between 1960s and early 2000s. Where we thought we'd need to program it, because we were modelling it on ourselves even back then, and back then we thought brain was biologically fully pre-programmed.

Then fMRI brain imaging came, we understood how brain functions, that's it's not pre-programmed but learning from basic LLM-like template and then inferring based on what it learned (remember the "90% of the brain is not used" pre-fMRI myth?), and within a decade, basics of modern AI being "learn and infer" principle became mainstream.

And then they look at alternatives, and conclude "yes, this is in fact by far the best system we've ever had for this purpose".

"It's not perfect" is utopian thinking. What matters is "is this the best system we had so far".

Curious opinion considering that legal profession is mostly applied about logic. You learn the rules, and they you use logic to apply them to each situation.

Of course we do. We literally modeled current gen AI on it.

In fact, we even know that LLMs overwhelmingly struggle learning where humans struggle as well. Because it's the same process.

The only difference is that we are embodied and spend decades learning, while they have far more compute and memory and are able to learn in days. Each grants us slightly different advantages and disadvantages within the learning process.

Which is fundamentally the same process.

It is literally learning though. It's a neural network modeled on human brain, learning in the same way human brain does.

You going "lalalala, can't hear you" isn't changing reality. It's still learning.

Jesus Fucking Christ. It's 2026, Trump has been putting his boot on the necks of major networks and studios for a year and a half now. I realize you probably fell into a coma in 2016, but ten years later, the free press, regardless of what you think of it, or fair you imagine it is, is under direct assault. Fuck off with the "MSM" bullshit and grow the fuck up.

In EU, most grid operators learned from the mistakes of "let's just let everyone feed grid from unexpected input points all at once, and then stop all at once".

So the offset for feed in tariff is so high that it's basically never profitable to do so.

Correct, that's why I didn't mention it at all.

All I spoke about is that "you're not taking electricity from the grid when electricity from the grid is basically free, and you're taking electricity from the grid when when electricity is hilariously expensive".

It's telling that I haven't talked about that at all, and yet both naysayers claim I did, because that's your narrative.

If you're in Europe like me, when it's sunny and windy the price is going to be near zero, and when it's not it's going to spike to mid to high two digits cents per kilowatt. Had some cases of going to three digits in recent years. That really sucked.

I.e. you're "harvesting" when it's near zero cost electricity, and having to pay when it's expensive. The only thing that could give you any "return on investment" is the legally mandated 24 hour pricing shift which if memory serves me right is EU mandated, which is specifically designed to artificially inflate price of electricity renewables produce to give them a chance of paying for themselves at all.

Both are true at once. Preference mathching is best, but preference shifting can work if you have a correct template for that specific human. Then you can determine what preference shifting has worked on this type of human in the past, and deliver that kind of material in that kind of context to get the process along.

Notably, same thing is required. Deep understanding of one's thoughts. Preferably before one thinks them.

Want a scary thought?

What is your wife doing on your wifi, and who is she dressing up for?

Want a REALLY scary thought?

Look up the trend of old men autogynephilia that leads to cross dressing and even social transition.