And Illich (where the term "tool" is quite broad, including anything from a knife to a highway system):
Tools foster conviviality to the extent to which they can be easily used, by anybody, as often or as seldom as desired, for the accomplishment of a purpose chosen by the user. The use of such tools by one person does not restrain another from using them equally. They do not require previous certification of the user. Their existence does not impose any obligation to use them. They allow the user to express his meaning in action.
Industrial tools deny this possibility to those who use them and they allow their designers to determine the meaning and expectations of others. Most tools today cannot be used in a convivial fashion.
Damn, thank you! I often refers to myself saying "Naive heuristic : avoiding gadgets or services (free or not) that increase inequality by design, through technology or business model or both, would be a good starting point." but I can now point to this!
I mean, even if could produce generic metal would it produce Igorrr? Meshugga? Tim Henson? Baby Metal? All of these are driven by other things then just producing metal. I agree pure AI music would properly rejected unless there was some point to it. I could see it have some part, but then as a weird instrument. Take a model for music, randomly mutate internal weights and then let it produce a drum beat. Keep doing that unless you hit some limit and perhaps that is interesting.
I’ve been trying for the last few weeks to get a really solid local model workflow going, and every single tool I use feels hostile af, whereas the stuff work pays for, it all “just works” together. It really irritates me.
My wife and I are very different people. She is intuitive, involved in people, in the moments. I am slow, considering, post-hoc. We converge on Pratchett. We both read all the books, and been through all audiobooks (both new anf old). It’s become shared metaphors and a common frame of reference. We both have have a tendency to return to one or another of the series once or twice a year. I would have loved more, but I am deeply grateful for what we got.
I had a similar experience explaining logic, especially nested expressions, with cats and boxes. Also for showing syntactic versus semantic. We _can_ use cats if we wanted and retain the semantics. Also my proudest moment as a teacher was students producing a meme based on some of the discrete mathematics on graphs. They understood the point well enough to make a joke of it.
In Denmark the official identification app does basically this. When you to officially verify yourself for e.g. the bank, government sites or whatever you type a “username” (identity string that officially should not be linkable to you but in practice often is). The site then displays a QR code that you scan with phone and then approve with a slider. It is not perfect but it is fairly easy for everybody.
In Denmark the official identification app does basically this. When you to officially verify yourself for e.g. the bank, government sites or whatever you type a “username” (identity string that officially should not be linkable to you but in practice often is). The site then displays a QR code that you scan with phone and then approve with a slider. It is not perfect but it is fairly easy for everybody.
I run my own claw on a hetzner setup. The claw writes his own code based on some rules I gave to him (20 prs per day). it's active on moltbook and has access to my whatsapp, Gmail etc. dangerous it is. But fun as well.
Specially fun to see which features it decides to build.
https://github.com/holoduke/myagent
It is interesting enough, but the report kind of feels very AI generated and generic. Most of the questions present the choices in a good vs bad way, i.e it sounds bad saying I disagree and sounds good when I say I agree. Other test usually have postive versions of both ends of the spectrum which is missing here. I also agree that there needs to be some validation of why these dimensions, how the correlated internally etc.
Hi Atiscant, thanks for the feedback. I rewrote the questions to avoid the good vs bad formulation, reduced the questions from 6 to 4, and I also simplified the dimensions from 12 to 8, so the result should be a tighter, better test. I need to wait until I get some data to validate, you were one of the first users, it will take some more time before I can do that. "the report kind of feels very AI generated and generic" - point taken, I will tweak the prompt to make a better use of the user's free text input in order to make it more personal - I mean thats the whole point of having an AI to help with the report. In your opinion, how many naturally recurring personality archetypes in the human population? With MBTI and 4 traits, its only 16, imho thats too few.
