Human translation is still very much a business. No lawyer or diplomat who wants to keep their job, no manufacturer of heavy machinery or medication who wants to stay in the market and not get sued, is going to use an LLM instead of a professional translator. Ask people in the business. The demamd is fine. They aren't building their revenue on translations for Joe's ice cream parlour website or private letters.

In any industry, there is at least a decently sized segment where it matters a lot that the work is actually done correctly and someone can vouch and be liable for it.

The most prevalent trend I see around me today is that people are going back to using the LLMs as research, review, and sketching tools, but writing most actual code themselves again. And it's not just AI skeptics doing that, it's those who went all-in and are finally seeing the downsides and limitations of this technology, now that the hype is waning.

At least for human-written code, there's usually a thought and concept to be discovered underneath. For LLMs, one-shotting is all they know, and getting them to consider months or years of expanding and changing requirements will quickly turn into an impossible game of Twister.

The tools we "play" with, we developed and refined over decades, and we did so for good reason. They all emerged out of real problems that needed solving in the real world. Many are born out of experiences where things went terribly wrong.

AI bros and execs drinking the kool aid are gleefully dismissing the warning signs of millions of experienced developers, and don't think that maybe, just maybe, their billions of hours of experience may mean they know some things they don't.

The landing will be brutal, and I have my popcorn ready.

You describe yourself as a vibe coder. In other words, you don't understand what you're shipping, and somehow that doesn't seem to concern you.

I'm not worried about your coworker, I'm worried about your employer allowing you to deploy a mess without requiring someone with knowledge to have challenged it, and I'm worried for your customers.

And of course, especially for music, the human element is pretty much the entire point, so while a lot of people enjoy it for a while as a toy to play around, I don't think many people would seriously consider listening to AI music as being worth their time. It would be like knowingly and deliberately reading fake news.

But for novel solutions, complex business logic, things deeply integrated with external systems... the code generation quickly turns terrible and useless. Especially if it's in anything but Python, Java, or JS.

Most of these differences in results end up being about differences in application. LLMs suck at out-of-distribution material, inherently.

Because we don't read reports just to have something to read, we do because we want to learn something about the world. And actual music fans don't listen to music just to drown out the silence, they want to listen to what another human being has to say, someone with their own history, experiences, views on life and the world, something to say and the creativity to express it in an interesting way. It makes absolute sense to be pissed off at something artificially generated, devoid of any intent or meaning, statistically generated based on a mass-pirated library of real musicians' work, skinsuiting as music with content.

I admit there are situations where music is used just to have sound, and some people just want to have something on in the background without having to pax attention to it. And one could lament or not the fact that humans are no longer really necessary to produce vapid muzak. But going by the GP's words, I don't think that that's what they were doing or looking for.

The scenario isn't a temporary crisis, it's total collapse, end of the world stuff. Why would I be so keen on surviving that? What for? Everyone and everything I enjoy in life would be gone anyway.

It's like the billionaires' apocalypse bunkers. What do they think they would be doing all day, and to what end? Even if they managed to secure enough clean air, clean food, and clean water, how many years are they planning to spend in their bunker pool, or watching their local movie library until the TV breaks? What's the end goal there?

I get that survivalists have a whole subculture, and it's an interest and hobby people enjoy doing, that's cool. But I think even they, if this happened and their skills allowed them to survive, would pretty soon start wondering why they would want to try to survive by all means possible in a barren, empty, dead world. If the survivalism is a fun hobby for someone, sure, but to force oneself to learn those skills for a potential apocalypse scenario doesn't seem to me like a reasonable thing to invest time in at all.

Add the fact that they totally suck at tasks outside of those spanned by the training data. I know there's a vision of the future where humans are all gig workers generating specialised training data for LLMs, but it doesn't sound much more plausible to me than a future where intellectual progress forever stops at the 2022 level, because everything will be done by LLMs and that's when anything new stopped being thought of.

I've been told for three years that it's the early days, and everything completely changes every few months, and these are the worst the tools will ever be. Meanwhile, I see very little technical progress, zero return on investment anywhere, negative infinity profitability on the side of the providers, and a fast growing realisation among the masses on all the myriad tasks they are systemically unsuitable for.

The piracy comes first, and it's exactly the same thing. GenAI Corp. can't train models on illicitly obtained media before illicitly obtaining said media. And that very thing is already what private individuals got and get sued for millions over.

The GenAI Corp., having gotten away with that unpunished, then goes on to commit further violations by commercially exploiting the media with neither a license to do so, nor any intentions to pay the rights-holders for their use.

By the media conglomerates' own math, these GenAI companies should all be drowning in lawsuits over kazillions of bajillions of dollars.

"What if you could only hear [your favourite song] once, and that was it?"

Also very relevant to modern day concerts, with so many in the audience focusing more on recording their crappy phone videos than on appreciating the live moment.

I think the hocus-pocus language is also to a large part responsible for this ridiculous hype bubble in the first place, why investors are ignoring all the warning signs and betting it all on vapourware, why mass media is diligently ignoring that all of those amazing projections are built on an entirely fictitous circular zero-sum game with made-up numbers, and why non-tech executives are talked into sacrificing their companies' product quality, service level, and know-how for a third-party dependency with some vague promises of future savings and some unproven efficiency gain.

More personally, it makes me very glad that I left CS research more than a decade ago. My friends from academia, and having remote-visited a conference again recently, confirmed my suspicion that this is what CS research is largely about these days. Throw tokens at the wall, pull the handle, see what sticks and present it as a discovery. Nobody asks about what could possibly be learned from it, and nobody cares. Nothing is reproducible in any reasonable sense of the word, and nothing is of any real use for other researchers. These communities and conferences used to be about curiosity, discovery, and collaboration. Now it's just about showing what everyone got from the slot machine. How terminally boring.

No one can say he didn't live a full life.

Turner Classic Movies is, in my opinion, the only TV channel actually worth paying for. Curation, curveballs, and great commentary by fans and experts -- that's what you won't find on streaming servies.