Reminds me of VST GUIs, looks great! But, like other commenters have noted, I think a number of these controls might be desktop only, which is totally fine. There’s too much UI stuff centered around mobile anyway these days
Counterpoint: I hate VST GUIs. They're often skeuomorphic hell.
They love fiddly round knobs which are terrible to control with a mouse or touchpad, and are bad for accessibility. They also tend to have a bunch of mystery meat navigation because the historic hardware UIs they're emulating were forced to bury stuff behind menus due to limitations of the technology, and cost limitations, at the time. Some are better than others, but the priority is often looking cool in screenshots rather than being comprehensible and discoverable.
I don't mind shadows and shapes that look three dimensional; affordances that indicate what you can do with an interactive element is great and an improvement over the flat trend. But, VST GUIs are among the worst examples to copy. And, round knobs are probably never the right choice for a computer GUI.
Haha yeah I think I’m mostly speaking from nostalgia. I do remember wrestling with knobs in Massive or whatever free VSTi back in the day was pretty terrible.
I was thinking the same thing. And I was also thinking, now that Ableton Live has a JavaScript toolkit [1], maybe this Ambient CSS could be useful in that context.
I’m still on Ableton Live 11 so the Ableton Live Extensions SDK is not available for me. Therefore I cannot try this idea myself yet.
I was also unsure about that. A couple of YouTube videos I saw gave me the impression that it is possible to spawn a web view with your own HTML, JS and CSS. But without being able to try it out myself yet, I can’t really know if I understood correctly or not. But they did say that in terms of what you can do API wise it is very limited still indeed. But also that they are going to expand the capabilities of what you can do over time.
It being pretty limited is also part of the reason why I’ve not yet decided if I should pay for the upgrade from 11 to 12, or if I should wait it out until say Ableton Live 13 or 14 or 15 comes out.
I have the Suite version, so if I upgrade it will be a pretty expensive upgrade. Although, I did see that they also have a rent-to-own option to pay little by little over several months. And then there is also the possibility of discounts on Black Friday and Cyber Monday, which is only a couple of months away.
Also there is still a lot of content and capabilities in Ableton Live Suite 11 that I haven’t even made use of yet, including the full M4L that comes included with Suite. So even if I were to wait years before upgrading I wouldn’t run out of things to learn about the version I currently have anytime soon :)
Are there significant differences re: sandboxing between Lua and monty? Just curious if there are any holes that a Lua sandbox has that monty might account for
The main property that's really important is that Monty VM state is fully serializable and resumable. So you can run the VM code until you get to a host call, then serialize and persist the state to disk. Then, at a later time you can resume the VM with the tool call results.
Even Luau (which was made for sandboxing user code) don't really have this property.
I also often need EQ in the reverse situation, when I need less bass through my nice studio monitors when watching TV. Otherwise I’ll be watching Star Trek with dialogue at a normal volume and BOOM, the loudest photon torpedo you’ve ever heard.
If you're watching through VLC, you can set the mix to stereo in the audio settings - perhaps there's a similar setting you can find? Not sure if you've got the tv's optical going straight into an amp. Some stereo receivers also have a "night mode" that can do this, you might find an older cheaper one with pre-outs or similar.
In the context of lab hardware there’s a ton of proprietary software and barriers to automating things. I think this is less about how to communicate, and more guaranteeing that “yes, this piece of hardware can interface with an agent” and is meant to do so. Kind of like using MCP vs letting your agent make raw HTTP requests
I didn't even necessarily mean diverting from the mission, just that optimising for network storage now reads like a feature maybe prioritised in anticipation of a stronger cloud user base
I think the fact that these kinds of companies were portrayed as such in fiction kind of prevents them from adopting the cool aesthetic. Like they need something to separate them from being the exact image of an evil futuristic corporation that lives in our heads. Or else we might actually recognize what they are.
Agreed, our real-life corporations are still trying to convince themselves (by 'them' I mean employees) that they're the good guys and wrap everything in a layer of HR-speak' "We're helping connect the world! Yay!", " We're collaborating with the ministry of War to zero people, but only if they have a signed judicial order", etc.
I mean we've got Anthropic openly advertising that they may be engineering the end of the world, we have an AI that called itself "MechaHitler" after its founder did a couple of Sieg Heils at a Presidential inauguration, we've got a major company that named itself Palantir.
People are reaching pretty hard if they don't see what we're dealing with here.
Today's billionaires aren't like yesterday's. They could be doing cool shit but they are just padding their own private real estate and stock portfolios. Yawn.
Why not make an epic bridge or tower with gargoyles on it? Why not a museum or park?
You can walk around Europe and see buildings from centuries ago. Who is building the things and spaces people in 2426 will marvel at?
Isn't it better that Bill Gates instead pumped huge amounts of money into philanthropy? Meanwhile SF has the UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital and Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. A cathedral would be nice to look at but preventing malaria or helping sick kids seems preferable. In the past money couldn't have easily be deployed for good like this and helping fund cathedrals was likely done to increase the donors likelihood of getting into heaven.
My understanding is that represents only a tiny fraction of their wealth. As I understand it, the idea is that it would be better if the billionaire's other frivolous spending was on something that would endure for future generations. (Setting aside the religious question of weather cathedrals are frivolous.)
Did prior generations of billionaires spend a higher percentage of their wealth on charity?
I also genuinely wonder how the ratio of "paper wealth" has changed. How much money would Elon or Jeff have of they actually sold their shares in their companies? How does that compare to John D Rockefeller or the Getties? I also wonder when those created their charities.
Who cares about the past. They should be building public infrastructure and do some things the rest of society enjoys instead of buying castles and islands surrounded by fences they visit once every 2 years
Hopefully the benchmark evolves because actual law enforcement starts arresting the criminals at Anthropic, OpenAI, and Meta, so the benchmark can just count actual felonies.
DuckDB is an in-process (now I guess less so with Quack) OLAP database for analytical workloads. PostgreSQL or MariaDB are OLTP row-oriented databases that are great for application/transaction-focused workloads but are less great when you want to query across a giant amount of data.
I don’t think I really agree with the author’s approach here, but I will say LLMs have been a huge help to me as I’ve been reviewing linear algebra and diving into signal processing. Anything in a textbook that I don’t fully grasp or am confused about, I just take a snapshot or copy paste then ask a model to derive it or explain it in different terms.
It reduces friction a ton, but at the end of the day I’m not skipping anything.
All arguments like this boil down to semantics at a certain point, but yes large language models can “intuit” because they can generalize between examples. The issue then becomes how you pack new examples into context.
Humans can “intuit” based on a much larger, if not unlimited, context. Also I just want to say that human cognition is something so insanely complex and deep that we will not understand it at all in my lifetime. To attribute all, or really any, aspects of human cognition to a machine at this point is silly to me.
Define insanely complex and deep in a way that isn't illiterate hand waving.
Most humans are dumber than a box of rocks. Here in Seattle we had one of many light rail-related fuckups where they had to replace part of the line with buses. People piled into the front of one when it was full. When people got out they never moved back. As the driver struggled to close the door and people struggled to get in the wad of people never moved back to fill the ample space.
Chatgpt was smarter than the average person a while ago
> People piled into the front of one when it was full. When people got out they never moved back. As the driver struggled to close the door and people struggled to get in the wad of people never moved back to fill the ample space.
This does not demonstrate a lack of intelligence. It demonstrates laziness and a lack of interest in spreading apart. Or just lack of consideration (or even malice) on the part of those at the back of the wad.
> Chatgpt was smarter than the average person a while ago
This is an absurd claim that fundamentally misunderstands what it means to be "smart". Reasoning that would get you to this conclusion would equally well apply to Google's search engine over a decade ago.
I’m not talking about the actions we take or how we might perform at certain tasks, I’m talking about how our brains actually work. My point is that we have no idea how I’m able to imagine an apple and see it in my mind’s eye. It’s basically biological magic to us at this point.
There are processes at work there that we don’t even have the language to describe.
Not only that, but we do it with a processor that is basically required to operate in a narrow temperature band below 40C, using a mere 86 billion neurons (although the equivalence with either machine-learning "neurons" or LLM parameters is not at all clear) operating on a few dozen watts; and with this we operate many other systems besides language processing. It's not clear that our reasoning process requires language, either.
(86 billion is the number ChatGPT, ironically enough, has given me a couple of times. I remember hearing for a long time that it was estimated to be somewhere in the ballpark of 100 billion. This is not my field of study.)
I recently read a blogpost from a human neuroscience student who came across this question (https://ccli.substack.com/p/the-biggest-mystery-in-neuroscie...), and she looked up the study behind this number (https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:1f559b3b-97fd-48c2-b2ac-29...), and it seems that the actual current state of knowledge is that the number is somewhere in the range 60-100 billion, with probably some of that variation being biological and some coming from uncertainty in the measurement techniques, hard to tell, because all the data comes from nine brains.
For now, caring about a topic (or having somebody you trust care for you) still gets you better information than asking an LLM.
reply