> I understand artists etc. Talking about AI in a negative sense, because they don’t really get it completely, or just it’s against their self interest which means they find bad arguments to support their own interest subconsciously.

This is an extremely crude characterisation of what many people feel. Plenty of artists oppose copyright-ignoring generative AI and "get" it perfectly, even use it in art, but in ways that avoid the lazy gold-rush mentality we're seeing now.

I hear you, that's not a problem of AI but a problem of copyright and other stuff. I suppose they'd enrage if an artist replicated their art too closely, rightly or wrongly. Isn't it flattery that your art is literally copied millions of times? I guess not when it doesn't pay you, which is a separate issue than AI in my opinion. Theoretically we can have worse that's only trained on public domain that'd have addressed that concern.

Just like you cannot put piracy into the bag in terms of movies, tv shows you cannot put AI into the bag it came from. Bottom line, this is happening (more like happened) now let's think about what that means and find a way forward.

Prime example is voice acting, I hear why voice actors are mad, if someone can steal your voice. But why not work on legal framework to sell your voice for royalties or whatever. I mean if we can get that lovely voice of yours without you spending your weeks, and still compensated fairly for it, I don't see how this is a problem. -and I know this is already happening, as it should.

Looks great, looking forward to digging in. I had a similar idea a while back (B.A., before agents) but it seemed too big to take on. Was this able to be realised due to agentic coding?

Doubt it, based on my ccusage output. I do about the monthly charge in tokens in a day.

Thanks for giving this a more historical framing. Capabilities seem to be something system designers should be a lot more familiar with.

Cited in other injection articles, e.g. https://simonwillison.net/2023/Apr/25/dual-llm-pattern/

Legrady belongs to the first generation of photographic-based artists to integrate computational processes in the mid-1980s for creating “Born-Digital” visualizations. His current artistic and research projects explore algorithmic processes for photographic imaging and data visualization through semantic categorization and self-organizing systems, interactive computational-based art installations, and mixed-realities narrative development. A key focus is the creative potential of such technologies for aesthetic coherence and expression.

Why is something this interesting and full of good ideas invisible on HN? The idea of computation around us, like street lights, has so much promise.

This is an account of a woman’s husband and the father of her children being severely ill and dying by suicide, not “some hardship” or a “topic”. Have some respect for goodness sake. You never know when you’ll need someone to do the same for you.

This is exactly the type of irrational, emotional reaction the active is designed to elicit. The article is advocating for a public policy position, it relates to the topic of suicide, and it describes the hardships of the author. The merit of the position is irrelevant to the fact that this article has been so effective in evoking an emotive response from you, that simply a rational description of its content has managed to offend you.

To me your reaction is just as emotional. Your emotions require you to attempt to be analytical, dispassionate and transcend the issue. It's possible to have empathy for the author and be agnostic to any perceived rhetorical goals.

I'm curious if you know of anyone in your family and friend circles with this disorder? If so, have you talked to them?

I have made 0 comments ITT on the merit of the ideas put forward by the author. I have exclusively commented on the use of rhetorical devices to persuade the audience of their policy positions. So I’m curious why you’re asking me about the merits of the points advocated in the article. Are you truly incapable of seeing the difference between those two things?

I love it, and I’m no Wolfram cheerleader. It’s proper 6am acid epiphany. In one essay he’s opened up my mind considerably, and even if he’s wrong, I’m so glad there are people who have this kind of ambition.

Nice that the article links to the original Time Out "Eavesdroppers" article, but only mentions an "American journalist" as author, ignoring Duncan Campbell. Both were given a hard time by the authorities, which Campbell wrote about at The Intercept: https://theintercept.com/2015/08/03/life-unmasking-british-e...

Edit: having read it, very lightweight as you'd expect. Interesting they are publicising their new in-house historian (https://twitter.com/TrooperAbs) but not the new authorised history that has just been released (https://twitter.com/GCHQ/status/1320292272488009729).