I am actually going to guess that this is in fact unfortunately not an LLM. I have been made a few audio webpages and don’t think a lot of these mistakes would have been made, even though the model can’t hear :^)
<!-- EXACT setup from working simple-test.html -->
<!-- Chiptune3 now loaded via Vite build system -->
are pretty stark llmisms. also the random emojis in front of the duplicate and triplicate "Browse Music" links, the corny tagline in the footer, yeah nah. if this was made by human hands, it could only have been as elaborate satire. bad/inexperienced human code does not look like this.
> <!-- EXACT setup from working simple-test.html -->
All LLM-kind would be vastly improved if the words "exact" and "brilliant" were nerfed to hell in their pre-training weights or even just removed from their training distributions entirely. Virtually nothing outside of mathematics is "exact", and virtually nothing outside of colors should be described as "brilliant".
Also basic functionality not working paired with awkward and vaguely nonsensical phrasing - search, show all, "Showing tracks from all groups.", queue all -> "No songs found in this group." And that paired with some otherwise relatively sophisticated techniques involved in the basic functionality.
LLMs are on occasion like a kid that can do a standing double backward somersault, but can't walk. It's the same tell you'll have in discussions online. Somebody will spew out extremely esoteric (and accurate) knowledge/concepts, but then demonstrate a complete misunderstanding (or lack of knowledge) of basic concepts in the exact same domain.
Similarly blessed that I am too stupid to comprehend this post.
This person compares themselves to Prometheus and is begging for cash? What? Why is this not flagged?
Not sure why you're being downvoted, this is what I've heard as well. It gets a person cash while they are in transitionary periods of time. There are not a lot of jobs you can get paid for almost immediately- most require startup time, training, applications, etc.
I hear you — but what do you think Spotify or any of the other streaming services are? In my mind, algorithmic streaming services have much more in common with this "experiment" than your local radio DJ.
Spotify has a team of human editors who curate playlists. It's not all algorithmic. Those are exactly the jobs that something like this is directly threatening.
No, I mean a team of people who pick the songs that go into some of Spotify's playlists. They do have algorithmic playlists, but they also have an editorial team. You can read an interview done last year with their editorial head. [0]
At this point I think many of us are similarly exhausted by this sort of trite exercise. I really don't need some VC backed startup to show me this sort of output any more, especially when the output in question is obviously boring and substandard.
Probably one of the most reckless things I've seen in software. Beyond safety or quality, at the very least: what about all the existing contributors' PRs? Fuck 'em?
Right — it does seem cool but the voice is patching over a major gap. If I'm talking already, why wouldn't I just describe what I'm looking at and have the AI grab it for me?
I think they answer that question pretty convincingly: Because if what you're looking at is already on the screen, it much more easy to point to it and say "that" than to describe it.
(And if it's an abstract entity like a file, it might not even be possible to describe it, short of rattling off the entire file path)
pull up any moderately busy picture with more than a trivial amount of objects. pictures of "traffic" or
with other similar repetition are great for this demo. pick one specific object (like a specific tire on one car) in the image and write (or say) out all the words youd need to specify that exact object. now take the same image and point at the object with your mouse or circle it with an annotation tool. its often very very hard to describe accurately which object you are talking about, you will often resort to vague "location" words anyway like "on the upper left" that try to define the position in a corse way that requires careful parsing to understand. pointing/annotating is massively superior both in brevity, clarity, and speed.
I do agree. The Gary Tan takedown page is equally sensational, kinda for no reason? There’s a lot to rag on with Gary, but this webpage makes it seemed like he killed a guy or something.
reply