I only made it through the first round of prompt selection; both options for the second step were equally pointless and not at all prompts I would ever expect to result in a constructive outcome. In my experience, telling the model it screwed up without specifically addressing, unambiguously, how to fix it, only leads to more suffering. If this page illustrates nothing else, I think it shows the immense downside of trying to use simple one or two sentence prompts.

EDIT: Actually, I used to use Google's AI Studio a lot and fork it after every successful prompt interaction. When I'd encounter a problematic issue like this, I'd revert to the previous fork and try a different prompt until I could get the desired outcome, thus mitigating the need to "argue" with the LLM. Unfortunately the ability to cleanly fork and revert everything including the LLM context was removed some months ago, and I've yet to discover a workflow with any tool that works as well for me.

> In my experience, telling the model it screwed up without specifically addressing, unambiguously, how to fix it, only leads to more suffering.

I wonder if this is just a reflection of some senior folks being arrogant towards junior folks. When the latter finished a task but not to the liking of the senior person they might just get a "that's wrong, try again". Just to have sth similar repeat the second time around. But the arrogant guy got to boss around the junior one, and some junior folks grow up learning that's how you should behave so they also do it later.

Now it's not a person but a machine. And people just make fun of the dumb machine. Well, garbage in, garbage out If you are not specific in what you want, you might get crap back. Or at least sth you didn't envision.

How is "Make the shopping button blue" not specific? Any human with a lick of digital common sense would be able to understand what I obviously mean. How am I supposed to anticipate every single way the AI could possibly misinterpret a simple fucking instruction like that?

Absolutely, the initial prompt appears sufficient. But this is about the thing screwing up and the user giving corrective instructions. Saying essentially "are you dumb" is not helpful for neither a human nor a machine if you think the original instructions should have been sufficient. Clearly they were not in that case, if you like it or not. Just repeating or being condescending is not going to help.

At least with Reaper, if you cut an audio clip it will, by default, automatically apply small adjustable fade in/out envelopes to the ends so you specifically don't have to manually do it.

Yeah, every software/hardware seems to deal with this differently. The sampler I use the most (Octatrack) only jumps by zero-crossings when holding SHIFT, otherwise lets you freely create entirely new pops and cracks in your songs :)

Yes; I learned it that way as well but I was never able to write them smoothly or legibly. I consciously practiced cursive in adulthood and only then discovered the mirrored-c technique, which always looks right and flows far better. There are a lot of problems IMHO with the D'Nealian method that US pupils were prescribed, likely responsible for the huge backlash against cursive in general.

This site insisted on having write access to my connected MIDI devices, which is a bit concerning as it's not required for what the site actually does.

They're asking for midi device control & reprogram, my guess is that for some of the exercises you can use your own midi keyboard to input the note (dictation etc.)

I figured the same, but I did not encounter such exercises, and regardless having the ability to send sysex to my MIDI devices is not required for such a thing.

This is rather moving the goalposts from "plausibly human comment" to "meaningful literature", I think

No. I'm drawing it out to its logical conclusion.

It’s poor logic, a non sequitur. An absurd reduction. By your argument anyone who hasn’t written a great literary work is a poor writer, and would be bad at writing online comments.

LLMs aren’t lacking in the sort of writing skills that make for superficially good content. They know grammar, they know rhetoric, and they know their audience. You can’t tell them from a human on their writing skills. Where they tend to fall down is their logic and reasoning skills, and unfortunately it seems you can’t use that to distinguish them from the average online opinionator either.

No, that is a mischaracterization of what I wrote. They are great writers if you enjoy formulaic writing.

I've always kind of assumed in the industry when it comes to top 40 music this kind of thing has been in heavy use at big labels since at least the dawn of the millenium when Pro Tools also took off, it's just not been nearly as obvious.

The other replies have explained what's jumping out but I'd agree that without the other surrounding sentences of the article's introduction I'd be inclined to think that quoted sentence by itself might be human. The full text, however, doubles down on the AI-smelling constructions and IMHO almost certainly indicates some AI provenance.

I believe Poe's law makes it basically inescapable and HN is no exception to it

People have been talking about the book on here since it came out; I see no reason to believe people aren't genuinely interested in it. I loved it, personally.

In my experience, the Epic downloader would frequently lead to degraded performance and/or system instability when I'd leave it running; I've never noticed such problems at all with the Steam client.