The other day I had another conversation in which someone said that <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#GenerativeAI</a> made them more productive, and after I asked a few questions they admitted maybe 80% of the output is OK and they have to check and double check everything. Then when I asked the obvious followup, "wouldn't it be easier just to do it yourself from the beginning instead of having to put in all these safeguards and worry about whether you missed errors?" they had no real answer.<br><br>I feel like people have been sold the idea that <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#GenerativeAI</a> must provide productivity gains, and many don't bother to examine whether it really does.<br><br><a href="/tags/ai/" rel="tag">#AI</a> <a href="/tags/genai/" rel="tag">#GenAI</a> <a href="/tags/hype/" rel="tag">#hype</a><br>
Edited 1y ago
<p><a href="/tags/1984/" rel="tag">#1984</a> <a href="/tags/ai/" rel="tag">#AI</a> <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#GenerativeAI</a></p>
<p>Brian Eno: "The biggest problem about AI is not intrinsic to AI. It’s to do with the fact that it’s owned by the same few people, and I have less and less interest in what those people think, and more and more criticisms of what the effect of their work has been."<br><a href="https://musictech.com/news/music/brian-eno-ai-problem/" rel="nofollow" class="ellipsis" title="musictech.com/news/music/brian-eno-ai-problem/"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">musictech.com/news/music/brian</span><span class="invisible">-eno-ai-problem/</span></a></p><p><a href="/tags/brianeno/" rel="tag">#BrianEno</a> <a href="/tags/ambientmusic/" rel="tag">#AmbientMusic</a> <a href="/tags/music/" rel="tag">#Music</a> <a href="/tags/ai/" rel="tag">#AI</a> <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#GenerativeAI</a></p>
I read <span class="h-card"><a href="https://toot.cafe/@baldur" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>baldur</span></a></span>'s post Let's stop pretending that managers and executives care about productivity today, here: <a href="https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2025/disingenuous-discourse/" rel="nofollow" class="ellipsis" title="www.baldurbjarnason.com/2025/disingenuous-discourse/"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">www.baldurbjarnason.com/2025/d</span><span class="invisible">isingenuous-discourse/</span></a> and felt like riffing a bit on the section "Task sequences as vectors" since I've modeled stuff like this too. As with baldur's post mine is a bit of a gallop, meaning I might make some errors and omissions. The tl;dr is that this model suggests that in many workplaces, mandating AI tool use might have the perverse effect of making the group or workplace less productive overall, even if the tools make individuals more productive (as measured by unit throughput, say).<br><br>The rough idea is to model a bunch of people working in a company using queuing theory. Each person receives tasks to perform, completes each task in sequence, and passes the result onto another person. If a person is busy when they receive a new task, the task goes into a sort of inbox to wait till they're ready to work on it (the "queue" in "queuing theory"). Each person is modeled as a probability distribution, where the mean specifies the average or typical amount of time they take to complete a task, and the variance models the fact that sometimes tasks take more or less time to complete for unaccounted for reasons (you spill your coffee; the previous person did a bang up job that time; etc). You can model workplaces with many people, like factories and offices, in this way, and ask questions about how quickly the entire group can complete tasks (throughput, which relates to productivity), how much time passes between an initial incoming request and the output of a final product (latency or wait time), and how much variability there is in the throughput and latency. It's mathmagical!<br><br>Anyhow, baldur points out that the variance in individual task completion is the killer variable here. As you introduce more and more variability in the time-to-complete distribution of individuals, the group's throughput and latency suffer significantly. Depending of course on the structure of the group, there can be phase shifts from "throughput decreases" to "throughput effectively stops altogether" as this variability goes up. He argues, I think correctly, that forcing workers to use generative AI tools in their workflows can increase their task completion time variance. Even worse, even if it does make their individual throughput higher--meaning the tools locally "increase productivity"--an increase in the variance of that throughput can make the overall productivity of the workplace lower despite what seem to be individual gains! A manager that actually did care about productivity would at the very least consider this possibility before mandating the use of such tools.<br><br>I wanted to add that these sorts of phenomena can be even worse depending on how you model time-to-complete. Often a Gaussian distribution (bell curve) is used, reflecting that sometimes tasks can be completed faster and sometimes they take a bit more time, but tend to an average and do not skew towards faster or slower. This is largely the model baldur was discussing. However, knowledge work, and especially work like coding or R&D, are often better modeled by exponential distributions or similarly long-tailed distributions like the gamma distribution. With knowledge work, most tasks are completed in an average-ish amount of time, occasionally some are completed more quickly, but more often there are tasks that take 2, 3, sometimes 10 or more times as long as the average case. For the exponential distribution, roughly 5% of tasks take an "anomalously" long time.<br><br>A sequence of exponentially-distributed tasks has challenging throughput and latency behavior. The sum of independent exponential distributions is a gamma distribution, which is also long-tailed but usually with an even worse rate parameter that tends to lengthen the tail, meaning delays compound (in baldur's post delays tend to be compensated by symmetrical gains if the group is large enough, but that doesn't happen with long-tailed distributions). I don't know enough about queuing theory to say what the general behavior is, but intuitively it seems it must be equally challenging in real-world arrangements. This is one way to account for why software development projects and R&D projects are almost never completed early and can sometimes take 2 or more times longer than anticipated.<br><br>Adding variance to an exponential distribution--as mandated use of AI tools might do--has the effect of also increasing the mean time to completion. It also flattens/lengthens the tail. I haven't worked it out for other long-tailed distributions but I suspect similar phenomena with those. Overall this would be going in the wrong direction, making the killer problem--the long tail--even worse!<br><br><a href="/tags/ai/" rel="tag">#AI</a> <a href="/tags/genai/" rel="tag">#GenAI</a> <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#GenerativeAI</a> <a href="/tags/llm/" rel="tag">#LLM</a> <a href="/tags/aimandates/" rel="tag">#AIMandates</a> <a href="/tags/queuingtheory/" rel="tag">#QueuingTheory</a> <a href="/tags/modeling/" rel="tag">#modeling</a> <a href="/tags/workplacemodeling/" rel="tag">#WorkplaceModeling</a> <a href="/tags/productivity/" rel="tag">#productivity</a><br>
Edited 215d ago
Please stop saying "AI powered". It's a mixed-up way to talk that allows for a lot of mischief:<br><br>1. It's a mixed metaphor. AI is reactive, not propulsive (think through what the word "power" means)<br>2. AI is a mixed bag of a large number of different technologies, making the term imprecise at best ("AI" in video games frequently leans on old school A*, quite different from the LLMs that make the news)<br>3. LLM-based AI mixes up other people's words into a slurry that is full of content-free phrases like "AI powered". Why ape that?<br><br><a href="/tags/ai/" rel="tag">#AI</a> <a href="/tags/genai/" rel="tag">#GenAI</a> <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#GenerativeAI</a><br>
My half-baked deep thought of the day is that we are living through a time in which imagination has been de-legitimatized generally, and we are reaching the necessarily absurd crescendo of this process. It is taking physical form in technologies such as generative AI, literal Anti-Imagination generators.<br><br>Let me be clear what I (don't) mean by "imagination". I do not mean "creative", "fictional", "imaginary", or "artistic"--those words can be related, but they've also been co-opted into exactly the trend I'm calling out. I also don't mean interesting images that appear in your mind or dreams but are then dismissed as lacking significance. I do mean truly imaginative acts arising within and from the mind, and not subjected to editorial scrutiny by logic, empiricism, or other instrumentalized forms of reason. Dreams are one way to access imagination; active imagination--stream of consciousness directed but not edited by the conscious mind--can be a way to explore it. Religious, magical, mystical, or meditative practices can too if that's your jam. So can psychoanalysis and some other forms of therapy. There are countless other ways and I don't pretend to have any special knowledge of this, I'm just riffing on an idea.<br><br>More and more I believe that we have to rediscover and exercise this aspect of ourselves if we're to navigate the current crisis. (*) Our collective imagination lacks force at a time when generative Anti-Imagination is reaching industrial scale.<br><br><a href="/tags/ai/" rel="tag">#AI</a> <a href="/tags/genai/" rel="tag">#GenAI</a> <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#GenerativeAI</a> <a href="/tags/imagination/" rel="tag">#imagination</a> <a href="/tags/activeimagination/" rel="tag">#ActiveImagination</a><br><br>(*) "Crisis" has a medical definition: "that change in a disease which indicates whether the result is to be recovery or death" (Webster's dictionary). Its Greek root can also mean "decision", which I like to think about when considering "crises". They are decisions that need to be made.<br>
<p>What if "42" is just the hallucination of an LLM from the future? 🤔</p><p><a href="/tags/llm/" rel="tag">#LLM</a> <a href="/tags/llms/" rel="tag">#LLMs</a> <a href="/tags/ai/" rel="tag">#AI</a> <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#generativeAI</a> <a href="/tags/42/" rel="tag">#42</a></p>
Edited 1y ago
R.A. Fisher wrote that the purpose of statisticians was "constructing a hypothetical infinite population of which the actual data are regarded as constituting a random sample." ( p. 311 <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/epdf/10.1098/rsta.1922.0009" rel="nofollow">here</a> ). In <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00031305.1998.10480528" rel="nofollow">The Zeroth Problem</a> Colin Mallows wrote "As Fisher pointed out, statisticians earn their living by using two basic tricks-they regard data as being realizations of random variables, and they assume that they know an appropriate specification for these random variables."<br><br>Some of the pathological beliefs we attribute to techbros were already present in this view of statistics that started forming over a century ago. Our writing is just data; the real, important object is the “hypothetical infinite population” reflected in a large language model, which at base is a random variable. Stable Diffusion, the image generator, is called that because it is based on <a href="https://proceedings.mlr.press/v37/sohl-dickstein15.pdf" rel="nofollow">latent diffusion models</a>, which are a way of representing complicated distribution functions--the hypothetical infinite populations--of things like digital images. Your art is just data; it’s the latent diffusion model that’s the real deal. The entities that are able to identify the distribution functions (in this case tech companies) are the ones who should be rewarded, not the data generators (you and me).<br><br>So much of the dysfunction in today’s machine learning and AI points to how problematic it is to give statistical methods a privileged place that they don’t merit. We really ought to be calling out Fisher for his trickery and seeing it as such.<br><br><a href="/tags/ai/" rel="tag">#AI</a> <a href="/tags/genai/" rel="tag">#GenAI</a> <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#GenerativeAI</a> <a href="/tags/llm/" rel="tag">#LLM</a> <a href="/tags/stablediffusion/" rel="tag">#StableDiffusion</a> <a href="/tags/statistics/" rel="tag">#statistics</a> <a href="/tags/statisticalmethods/" rel="tag">#StatisticalMethods</a> <a href="/tags/diffusionmodels/" rel="tag">#DiffusionModels</a> <a href="/tags/machinelearning/" rel="tag">#MachineLearning</a> <a href="/tags/ml/" rel="tag">#ML</a><br>
Edited 138d ago
<p>"Today, at its second annual upfront to advertisers, [Netflix] announced that it has created interactive mid-roll ads and pause ads that incorporate generative AI."</p><p><a href="https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/05/netflix-will-show-generative-ai-ads-midway-through-streams-in-2026/" rel="nofollow" class="ellipsis" title="arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/05/netflix-will-show-generative-ai-ads-midway-through-streams-in-2026/"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/0</span><span class="invisible">5/netflix-will-show-generative-ai-ads-midway-through-streams-in-2026/</span></a></p><p><a href="/tags/news/" rel="tag">#news</a> <a href="/tags/technology/" rel="tag">#technology</a> <a href="/tags/technews/" rel="tag">#TechNews</a> <a href="/tags/netflix/" rel="tag">#netflix</a> <a href="/tags/ai/" rel="tag">#AI</a> <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#GenerativeAI</a> <a href="/tags/ads/" rel="tag">#ads</a> <a href="/tags/advertising/" rel="tag">#advertising</a></p>
<p>"I am an administrator at New York University, responsible for helping faculty adapt to digital tools. Since the arrival of generative AI, I have spent much of the last two years talking with professors and students to try to understand what is going on in their classrooms. In those conversations, faculty have been variously vexed, curious, angry, or excited about AI, but as last year was winding down, for the first time one of the frequently expressed emotions was sadness. This came from faculty who were, by their account, adopting the strategies my colleagues and I have recommended: emphasizing the connection between effort and learning, responding to AI-generated work by offering a second chance rather than simply grading down, and so on. Those faculty were telling us our recommended strategies were not working as well as we’d hoped, and they were saying it with real distress.</p><p>Earlier this semester, an NYU professor told me how he had AI-proofed his assignments, only to have the students complain that the work was too hard. When he told them those were standard assignments, just worded so current AI would fail to answer them, they said he was interfering with their “learning styles.” A student asked for an extension, on the grounds that ChatGPT was down the day the assignment was due. Another said, about work on a problem set, “You’re asking me to go from point A to point B, why wouldn’t I use a car to get there?” And another, when asked about their largely AI-written work, replied, “Everyone is doing it.” Those are stories from a 15-minute conversation with a single professor.</p><p>We are also hearing a growing sense of sadness from our students about AI use. One of my colleagues reports students being “deeply conflicted” about AI use, originally adopting it as an aid to studying but persisting with a mix of justification and unease."</p><p><a href="https://www.chronicle.com/article/is-ai-enhancing-education-or-replacing-it" rel="nofollow" class="ellipsis" title="www.chronicle.com/article/is-ai-enhancing-education-or-replacing-it"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">www.chronicle.com/article/is-a</span><span class="invisible">i-enhancing-education-or-replacing-it</span></a></p><p><a href="/tags/ai/" rel="tag">#AI</a> <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#GenerativeAI</a> <a href="/tags/universities/" rel="tag">#Universities</a> <a href="/tags/highered/" rel="tag">#HigherEd</a> <a href="/tags/education/" rel="tag">#Education</a> <a href="/tags/writing/" rel="tag">#Writing</a></p>
I am 100% convinced just from my own experiences that tech companies are knowingly, purposely putting "AI" buttons and links near commonly-used buttons or links in user interfaces to encourage accidental clicking and increase their usage numbers. AI usage numbers are dismal, and surveys repeatedly show large majorities of people do not want these features.<br><br><a href="/tags/ai/" rel="tag">#AI</a> <a href="/tags/genai/" rel="tag">#GenAI</a> <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#GenerativeAI</a> <a href="/tags/darkpatterns/" rel="tag">#DarkPatterns</a> <a href="/tags/ui/" rel="tag">#UI</a> <a href="/tags/ux/" rel="tag">#UX</a> <a href="/tags/userinterface/" rel="tag">#UserInterface</a> <a href="/tags/tech/" rel="tag">#tech</a> <a href="/tags/dev/" rel="tag">#dev</a><br>
I'm glad to add Firefox to the list of apps I have to constantly check to make sure they haven't turned back on all the anti-features I disabled.<br><br><a href="/tags/firefox/" rel="tag">#firefox</a> <a href="/tags/mozilla/" rel="tag">#mozilla</a> <a href="/tags/ai/" rel="tag">#AI</a> <a href="/tags/genai/" rel="tag">#GenAI</a> <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#GenerativeAI</a> <a href="/tags/smartissurveillance/" rel="tag">#SmartIsSurveillance</a> <a href="/tags/tech/" rel="tag">#tech</a> <a href="/tags/dev/" rel="tag">#dev</a> <a href="/tags/web/" rel="tag">#web</a><br>
In the past couple days on LinkedIn I've seen two distinct people declaring that StackOverflow is "dead".<br><br>Meanwhile, I use it almost daily and it seems very much alive and still useful, to me.<br><br>I smell PR.<br><br><a href="/tags/stackoverflow/" rel="tag">#StackOverflow</a> <a href="/tags/ai/" rel="tag">#AI</a> <a href="/tags/genai/" rel="tag">#GenAI</a> <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#GenerativeAI</a> <a href="/tags/astroturf/" rel="tag">#astroturf</a> <a href="/tags/dev/" rel="tag">#dev</a> <a href="/tags/tech/" rel="tag">#tech</a> <a href="/tags/programming/" rel="tag">#programming</a><br>
Edited 321d ago
<p>Programming properly should be regarded as an activity by which the programmers form or achieve a certain kind of insight, a theory, of the matters at hand. This suggestion is in contrast to what appears to be a more common notion, that programming should be regarded as a production of a program and certain other texts.<br></p>Peter Naur in Programming As Theory Building, 1985.<br><br>A computer program is not source code. It is the combination of source code, related documents, and the mental understanding developed by the people who work with the code and documents regularly. In other words a computer program is a relational structure that necessarily includes human beings.<br><br>The output of a generative AI model alone cannot be a computer program in this sense no matter how closely that output resembles the source code part of some future possible computer program. That the output could be developed into a computer program over time, given the appropriate resources to do so, does not make it equivalent to a computer program.<br><br><a href="/tags/ai/" rel="tag">#AI</a> <a href="/tags/genai/" rel="tag">#GenAI</a> <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#GenerativeAI</a> <a href="/tags/llm/" rel="tag">#LLM</a> <a href="/tags/copilot/" rel="tag">#Copilot</a> <a href="/tags/agenticcoding/" rel="tag">#AgenticCoding</a> <a href="/tags/dev/" rel="tag">#dev</a> <a href="/tags/tech/" rel="tag">#tech</a> <a href="/tags/softwaredevelopment/" rel="tag">#SoftwareDevelopment</a> <a href="/tags/softwareengineering/" rel="tag">#SoftwareEngineering</a> <a href="/tags/programming/" rel="tag">#programming</a> <a href="/tags/coding/" rel="tag">#coding</a><br>
Edited 320d ago
<p>"A senior at Northeastern University filed a formal complaint and demanded a tuition refund after discovering her professor was secretly using AI tools to generate notes."</p><p><a href="https://fortune.com/2025/05/15/chatgpt-openai-northeastern-college-student-tuition-fees-back-catching-professor/" rel="nofollow" class="ellipsis" title="fortune.com/2025/05/15/chatgpt-openai-northeastern-college-student-tuition-fees-back-catching-professor/"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">fortune.com/2025/05/15/chatgpt</span><span class="invisible">-openai-northeastern-college-student-tuition-fees-back-catching-professor/</span></a></p><p><a href="/tags/news/" rel="tag">#news</a> <a href="/tags/technology/" rel="tag">#technology</a> <a href="/tags/technews/" rel="tag">#TechNews</a> <a href="/tags/education/" rel="tag">#education</a> <a href="/tags/ai/" rel="tag">#AI</a> <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#GenerativeAI</a></p>
Another new intrusive AI anti-feature popped up in Atlassian Jira today. I zapped it with uBlock Origin.<br><br>This is so much like when ads started flooding everything online, right down to the tools I'm using to de-clutter sites and webapps. At this point Jira is pimpled with terrible AI links nudged right next to legitimately useful features. Like it has acne, or maybe buboes.<br><br><a href="/tags/atlassian/" rel="tag">#atlassian</a> <a href="/tags/jira/" rel="tag">#jira</a> <a href="/tags/ublockorigin/" rel="tag">#uBlockOrigin</a> <a href="/tags/ublock/" rel="tag">#uBlock</a> <a href="/tags/noai/" rel="tag">#NoAI</a> <a href="/tags/aiantifeature/" rel="tag">#AIAntiFeature</a> <a href="/tags/aidarkpattern/" rel="tag">#AIDarkPattern</a> <a href="/tags/ai/" rel="tag">#AI</a> <a href="/tags/genai/" rel="tag">#GenAI</a> <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#GenerativeAI</a> <a href="/tags/dev/" rel="tag">#dev</a> <a href="/tags/tech/" rel="tag">#tech</a><br>
<p>I'm starting to really like 'vibe coding'...</p><p>I've now had several clients come to me to take over projects that another agency was working on because the other agency started using generative AI. Apparently there was a real drop in product quality. I wonder why.</p><p>Basically vibe coding is making me money specifically because I'm not using it.</p><p><a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#GenerativeAI</a> <a href="/tags/vibecoding/" rel="tag">#VibeCoding</a> <a href="/tags/programming/" rel="tag">#Programming</a></p>
Edited 321d ago
<a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/822011/coreweave-debt-data-center-ai" rel="nofollow">The Verge article</a> about CoreWeave by Elizabeth Lopatto is amazing.<br><p>Let’s start with some very recent history. CoreWeave is a data center company that pivoted in 2022 from crypto. (In 2021, CoreWeave made its money by… mining Ethereum.) Essentially, CoreWeave is a landlord for compute: companies pay for the use of its server racks for AI projects.<br></p>...<br><p>CoreWeave chief executive officer Michael Intrator, a former hedge fund manager,<br></p>...<br><p>“They have to continue to borrow to pay interest on the last loan.”<br></p>So,<br>- CoreWeave sits at the center of the AI bubble;<br>- it used to be a crypto company and also gets its (electric) power from a Bitcoin mining company that makes no money and has CoreWeave as its only customer<br>- it's positioned itself as a rentier;<br>- its interest payments on previous loans exceed its revenue by a significant amount, so it's paying off loans with more loans and has already defaulted once;<br>- it has essentially two customers, Microsoft and NVIDIA;<br>- it has a loan from one of the actors implicated in the 2008 financial crash (Magnetar)<br>- it's run by a finance guy, not a tech person<br>- yet it's in the position of someone who takes out a new credit card to pay the interest on the previous credit card<br><br>Yeah. Looks like crypto, and crypto's Ponzi scheme way of thinking, has slimed its way into the "real" economy after all.<br><br>Oh and welcome back, global financial crash. We missed you. And eyyy, how you doing Enron long time no see:<br><p>CoreWeave isn’t alone in its complex finances. Meta took on debt, using a SPV, for its own data centers. Unlike CoreWeave’s SPVs, the Meta SPV stays off its balance sheet. Elon Musk’s xAI is reportedly pursuing its own SPV deal.<br></p>"Complex finances" are what companies engage in when there isn't any there there (SPVs were Enron's "financial innovation" too).<br><br>Peter Thiel pulling his investments out of NVIDIA makes far more sense after reading this. Looks wobbly.<br><p>It is perhaps time to discuss the enormous stock sales from CoreWeave’s management team. Before the company even went public, its founders sold almost half a billion dollars in shares. Then, insiders sold over $1 billion more immediately after the IPO lockup ended.<br></p>...<br><p>“It’s noteworthy that people who have a good view on that business are cashing out,” says Leevi Saari, a fellow at the AI Now Institute.<br></p>and of course<br><p>It makes a certain kind of cynical sense to view CoreWeave itself as, effectively, a special purpose vehicle for Nvidia.<br></p><a href="/tags/ai/" rel="tag">#AI</a> <a href="/tags/genai/" rel="tag">#GenAI</a> <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#GenerativeAI</a> <a href="/tags/aibubble/" rel="tag">#AIBubble</a> <a href="/tags/coreweave/" rel="tag">#CoreWeave</a> <a href="/tags/corescientific/" rel="tag">#CoreScientific</a> <a href="/tags/microsoft/" rel="tag">#Microsoft</a> <a href="/tags/nvidia/" rel="tag">#NVIDIA</a> <a href="/tags/crypto/" rel="tag">#crypto</a> <a href="/tags/grift/" rel="tag">#grift</a> <a href="/tags/casinoeconomy/" rel="tag">#CasinoEconomy</a><br>
<p>Iain Banks perfectly explained <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#GenerativeAI</a> twenty years ago. </p><p>Everyone should read this passage.</p><p>Quotes from "The Algebraist"</p>
<p>这两天我是小刀捅屁股——开了眼了，可能对于熟练运用AI工具的象友不是新鲜事了吧，我之前只用chatgpt进行一些常识性的问答对话，但这两天我学会了：<br>- 用perplexity AI搜索资料<br>- 把pdf喂给NotebookLM并生成播客音频<br>- 把音频喂给otter.ai转化成可以逐字播放的文本</p><p>还有什么好用的工具也请象友多多推荐！<br><a href="/tags/长毛象安利大会/" rel="tag">#长毛象安利大会</a> <a href="/tags/长毛象安利交换大会/" rel="tag">#长毛象安利交换大会</a> <a href="/tags/长毛象安利中心/" rel="tag">#长毛象安利中心</a> <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#generativeAI</a> <a href="/tags/ai/" rel="tag">#AI</a> <a href="/tags/perplexity/" rel="tag">#perplexity</a> <a href="/tags/notebooklm/" rel="tag">#notebooklm</a></p>
Edited 1y ago
New uBlock Origin rule to clobber the intrusive "Copilot" button that recently appeared in Outlook web mail:<br><br>! Jul 25, 2025 <a href="https://outlook.office.com" rel="nofollow"><span class="invisible">https://</span>outlook.office.com</a><br>outlook.office.com##<a href="/tags/copilotcommandcenterbutton/" rel="tag">#CopilotCommandCenterButton</a><br><br>Note: there should be three (3) pound signs between ".com" and "CopilotCommandCenterButton". For some reason my fediverse server does not display all three.<br><br><a href="/tags/ublock/" rel="tag">#uBlock</a> <a href="/tags/aispam/" rel="tag">#AISpam</a> <a href="/tags/ai/" rel="tag">#AI</a> <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#GenerativeAI</a> <a href="/tags/copilot/" rel="tag">#Copilot</a> <a href="/tags/microsoft/" rel="tag">#Microsoft</a> <a href="/tags/outlook/" rel="tag">#Outlook</a> <a href="/tags/darkpattern/" rel="tag">#DarkPattern</a><br><br>This post is not an invitation to criticize me for using a Microsoft product or to suggest an alternative.<br>
Edited 255d ago
This Thanksgiving I am celebrating the AI revolution by putting the turkey, mashed potatoes, cranberry sauce, and bean casserole through a blender and serving Generative Alimentary Infusion to all my guests.<br><br><a href="/tags/ai/" rel="tag">#AI</a> <a href="/tags/genai/" rel="tag">#GenAI</a> <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#GenerativeAI</a> <a href="/tags/llm/" rel="tag">#LLM</a> <a href="/tags/thanksgiving/" rel="tag">#Thanksgiving</a><br>
<p>Anthropic, the company that made one of the most popular AI writing assistants in the world, requires job applicants to agree that they won’t use an AI assistant to help write their application.<br><br>“We want to understand your personal interest in Anthropic without mediation through an AI system, and we also want to evaluate your non-AI-assisted communication skills. Please indicate 'Yes' if you have read and agree.”<br></p>From <a href="https://www.404media.co/anthropic-claude-job-application-ai-assistants/" rel="nofollow" class="ellipsis" title="www.404media.co/anthropic-claude-job-application-ai-assistants/"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">www.404media.co/anthropic-clau</span><span class="invisible">de-job-application-ai-assistants/</span></a><br><br>Mediating everything else in the world through an AI system is just fine, though, and non-AI-assisted communication skills are otherwise unimportant to them.<br><br><a href="/tags/ai/" rel="tag">#AI</a> <a href="/tags/genai/" rel="tag">#GenAI</a> <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#GenerativeAI</a> <a href="/tags/anthropic/" rel="tag">#Anthropic</a><br>
As with crypto, so with AI:<br><p>A $1.5 billion AI company backed by Microsoft has shuttered after its ‘neural network’ was discovered to actually be hundreds of computer engineers based in India.<br></p><a href="https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/ai-company-files-for-bankruptcy-after-being-exposed-as-700-human-engineers-3208136/" rel="nofollow" class="ellipsis" title="www.dexerto.com/entertainment/ai-company-files-for-bankruptcy-after-being-exposed-as-700-human-engineers-3208136/"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">www.dexerto.com/entertainment/</span><span class="invisible">ai-company-files-for-bankruptcy-after-being-exposed-as-700-human-engineers-3208136/</span></a><br><br><a href="/tags/ai/" rel="tag">#AI</a> <a href="/tags/genai/" rel="tag">#GenAI</a> <a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#GenerativeAI</a> <a href="/tags/crypto/" rel="tag">#crypto</a> <a href="/tags/scam/" rel="tag">#scam</a> <a href="/tags/grift/" rel="tag">#grift</a> <a href="/tags/dev/" rel="tag">#dev</a> <a href="/tags/tech/" rel="tag">#tech</a> <a href="/tags/con/" rel="tag">#con</a> <a href="/tags/aicon/" rel="tag">#AICon</a><br>
<p>aquí te dejo un texto para copiar y pegar en los comentarios cuando veas que han usado la IA para una ilustración:</p><p>el uso de <a href="/tags/ia/" rel="tag">#IA</a> para generar ilustraciones tiene implicaciones morales muy graves: condiciones laborales infrahumanas en centros de datos del centro de Africa, robo de propiedad intelectual para el entrenamiento del programa, apoyo a una red de empresas que promueven el racismo y políticas anti-LGTBI+ en su cultura empresarial, el desastre ecológico creado por la alimentación y la refrigeración de los ordenadores, y la pérdida de trabajo de personas que necesitan cobrar por su arte</p><p>___---___---___---___---</p><p>Here's a a text to copy and paste in the comments when you see that they have used AI for an illustration</p><p>The use of <a href="/tags/ai/" rel="tag">#AI</a> to generate illustrations has very serious moral implications: inhumane working conditions in data centers in central Africa, theft of intellectual property for program training, support for a network of companies that promote racism and anti-LGBTQ+ policies in their corporate culture, the ecological disaster created by computer power usage and its cooling systems, and the loss of jobs for people who need to charge for their art</p><p><a href="/tags/generativeai/" rel="tag">#generativeAI</a> <a href="/tags/iagenerativa/" rel="tag">#IAgenerativa</a> <a href="/tags/ilustracion/" rel="tag">#ilustracion</a> <a href="/tags/illustration/" rel="tag">#illustration</a> <a href="/tags/artificialintelligence/" rel="tag">#artificialintelligence</a> <a href="/tags/inteligenciaartificial/" rel="tag">#inteligenciaartificial</a> <a href="/tags/arte/" rel="tag">#arte</a> <a href="/tags/art/" rel="tag">#art</a></p>
Edited 312d ago
