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.

This is essentially a high-stakes gamble. The payout is potentially millions, so they just try whatever. And I bet if it all turns against them and they're forced to pay legal costs etc. they'll just file for bancruptsy.

Perfect illustration of the thinking problem here. You don't even get WHAT the problem is.

Why is a driver able to fuck up a system? The OS should be the watchdog that says "WTF are you doing there?", not the obedient slave executing whatever.

A great illustration is W^X - first found not in Windows, but in OpenBSD. Because Windows happily goes "whatever you say, master", while the guys at OpenBSD said "no actual use case of non-broken, non-malicious software should ever behave like that, so we'll block it".

If you are responsible for a sensitive location, and a five-year old kid from the neighbourhood one day just wanders in and take a look around out of curiosity, pressing a few buttons to see what happens - you would definitely not keep your job by claiming that the little kid is actually the problem here.

And you clowns don't think that your OS is a fragile pile of crap if it's that easy to fuck up?

Seriously? Do you even know what the job of an OS _is_ ?

You are right. A screen that does not replace physical controls is a nice thing.

And I agree. Any vehicle that doesn't have a proper dashboard in front of me, where I need to look to the side to see important information, is a no-buy for me.

yes, it's a short list. But it's a start and a kind of "red line". I am hopeful they move that line to include other things that people use while driving all the time.

Are big screens nice? Sure, yes.

But if I have a choice between good physical controls and a big touch screen, I'll take the buttons and switches any day, thank you.

My 10 year old BMW has voice commands and a map that's always been more than enough for me. Sure, it's not as large, but while driving I don't want a big map - I want an indicator that tells me "next turn left in 500m" - and I have that, not on the main display but right in front of me on the dashboard. Newer models have it on a HUD.

Nothing in what you wrote makes a LARGE screen necessary.

They don't have to be better. They just have to be competing for the same ad money and users.

It's time YouTube gets some actual competition. Maybe it'll force them to revert some of the enshittification it's been going through. The crap is near unusable these days.

I don't know a single person who ever said that they want more or bigger touchscreens in their car.

Quite the opposite. I want physical controls and so do most people I've talked to. This is a car, not an iPad. Most of it I should be able to operate without taking my eyes off the road. And a touchscreen doesn't offer that.

In fact, Euro NCAP agrees. If you want a 5-star rating, you need physical controls.

The only people who want touchscreens are the car manufacturers, because it's cheaper and easier.

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.