> Is that so? Sounds very wrong to me. If we want to go the monad joke way, monads have to have an operation (a -> m b) that composes, but those are just normal functions, and there’s nothing curried about it. It’s a statement that one could bend enough so it’s kind of right, but what it really does is raise eyebrows.
I can see where they’re coming from, but they certainly haven’t set the stage for it to be a something you could deduce without already knowing what they’re referencing.
So to me, it seems they’re referencing the Free Monad, recursion schemes and a little of HomFunctor/Yoneda Lemma.
The free monad gives a coproduct of functions, where the value is either a recursive call or a value (branch vs node). To get from a set to a free monad, you need to define a Functor over the set, and given most things are representable, this is trivial.
Given this free monad, an algebra can be formed over it by providing a catamorphism, where the binary function would indeed be composition.
~~Nice addition of a link that doesn't exist in the actual "quoted" source. If it did exist it would certainly be helpful though, so thanks for adding it I guess.~~
EDIT:
Apparently their website design is just so poor their clickable links are identical to the non-clickable plain text. That link is a clickable word if you completely guess you can click on some of the apparent plain text.
As primarily an engineer doing maths, with code on the side, I feel the exact same.
It’s been way more of use to me in pulling together parts of topology, linear algebra, geometric algebra, homology et al than discovering furtive programming abstractions.
I couldn’t disagree more. I went to the doctors at 20 for suspect ADHD, I loved Maths more than anything but my degree was going terribly. I couldn’t focus on the correct things to get the work done, I had no sense of time or organisation, everything was an eternity away until it was due now.
Time went on and it got worse and worse. Even non-academic, fun became a chore. Making music, playing games, going out; thinking about them became this litany of choices and todos I’d spiral down and I’d end up just sat there. Wasting time. But thinking how I could be enjoying myself, but unable to break myself labouring in thought of the gravity of execution needed.
I got diagnosed last year, and a year ago on Thursday, at 31, started Elvanse. I can’t for a second understate how much my life has changed for the better. Not only can I now do the boring stuff that life needs (who knew mechanical engineers did so much dull paperwork and standards), the fun stuff came back too.
I have no doubt that even if the rat race didn’t exist, if we lived in some languorous, indulgent utopia where we could do as we please every second, that I would be in bed. Miserable and crippled with option paralysis.
It’s so one dimensional and offensive to whittle ADHD down to “everyone has a lack of focus, they need to do something else”. I don’t see any difference between that statement and saying “depression doesn’t exist, just be happy”.
It’s not one dimensional. Every man and his dog now claims to have ADHD. It used to be a legitimate thing that a few people legitimately have. But now people are like “oh I can’t focus doing my laundry I must have adhd feed me drugs”
We shove drugs down kids throats claiming they have adhd because they can’t focus in economics class.
It’s no different from depression. We used to treat people with depression. Now we just go straight for the drugs.
If you get offended by the majority being called out for their non existent issues that’s on you. But you should be taking offense to people who claim to have ADHD when they don’t.
Based on the ADHD-content I get recommended online, I agree there seems to be a bunch of people wrongly self diagnosing with ADHD and romanticizing it. It's really cringe and annoying. However, I can assure you that it exists and that people really do suffer from it. I would never use it as an excuse for anything, I actually never mention my diagnosis IRL, but it is useful to know why I struggle with some things that others seem fine with.
Only comment I upvoted so far. But just want to clarify that I never said it doesn’t exist. Just the majority of people don’t have it. I’ve only met 2 people who really have it and they could barely function without drugs. But I’ve met multiple dozens of people who say “oh I have adhd” like it’s fashionable simply because they get bored at work. It bothers the hell out of me knowing there’s people who truly have adhd and suffer to various extents.
> I’ve met multiple dozens of people who say “oh I have adhd”
People say a lot of things. How many of those people are actually diagnosed and actively treated for ADHD? There is diagnostic criteria they need to meet to be diagnosed. Watching videos on tiktok isn't a diagnosis. It is quite evident when people are "faking" ADHD.
As someone who has struggled with ADHD my whole life and got a diagnosis in my 40s, I would much prefer children are overdiagnosed than not - and I really don't think thats as frequent a thing as is made out.
I guess it may be different in the US where there is a financial incentive to prescribe medications, but in the countries I have lived with universal healthcare its more likely underdiagnosed, IMHO.
I think you might be confusing visibility with existence. Someone with a partially treated disorder very much looks on the outside to be faking it. Someone who is managing their ADHD by orienting their life around it with a complex system of high-effort strategies to get by and isn't visibly ADHD (especially the inattentive variant which is more common in women) around others nonetheless deserves to not have to do all that if possible. They shouldn't have to perform their rock bottom for you to take them seriously.
I'm sure there are people who are knowingly or unknowingly "faking it" but there's no one to be offended on behalf of, I have pretty severe ADHD and I couldn't care less. They're not hurting anyone least of all me.
I work with 2 people who both have meds for ADHD who just take it at random. Could go a couple of weeks then be like “I’m adhding today I need meds”. I don’t believe for 1 second they have ADHD because those who truly have it don’t go through a week of “I’m fineeee” then “I’m feeling a like todays a difficult day I think I’ll take meds”. They need the meds to function.
>It used to be a legitimate thing that a few people legitimately have.
It used to be only a few people for different reasons. First it was thought that you grow out of it, so if they missed your diagnosis as a child, because you weren't hyperactive, then they didn't diagnose you at all. And on top of that we just know more about it now, so we can be more detailed on the diagnosis. Which makes it sound like "oh now everyone has adhd". No, that's not the case.
And yes, there are lots of people that pretend to have ADHD, because their attention span minimized because of social media and whatnot, but ADHD is more than that. A lot more. It's not only being unable to focus, it can have severe physical sensations too and is just a very very broad spectrum. Yes, ADHD is real. Yes, we get more diagnosis now, because we know more. No, it's not that easy. Same with depression.
Can relate to that story. Got my diagnosis at 32. The effect wasn't as severe for me under medication, but I can definitely notice it.
And that's the point, which sadly often gets "ignored". Yes, meds can have a shitload of side effects. Yes, they might offer no benefit to some people. Yes, there are even tons of ADHD people that don't even need them. But there are many many other people that manage to get a grip on their life. The fact that I now know that I can manage life was the biggest eye opener to me. Now I just have to figure out the best possible way to do that. With or without meds, I don't know. Only the future can tell. But for now, medication is a good helper
If you actually have a normal functioning brain (imo) the detriments out weigh the benefits: you will do more but the quality will be lessened and you’ll have fewer insights.
(Also this is apart from the ethics of abusing a medicine that is tenuously situated in the public mind but is literally life saving for a small population of people (untreated ADHD increases risk of early death and reduces lifespan more than smoking or diabetes)).
The key word here is medicine. Like the opioids it’s a powerful double edged sword. Using amphetamine to get a supra-physiological advantage is illegal, extremely unethical and probably a really bad idea health-wise (doubly so if you “prescribed” it to yourself).
Can relate as well. I thought it was bullshit before also. I was convinced. That assumption (from pop culture takes by people who poison the discourse because they can’t separate a “feeling” from an informed opinion) kept me from treatment way way too long.
It’s amazing to me as someone who is always careful to consider the source of my positions and how my words affect people that there are people out there who just say/write things. They feel it then they write it.
I’d rather have to wait a while for shiny new feature, than dive head first into the unknown.
We made that mistake with social media, not taking it seriously enough. I can wait a hot minute for my iPhone to summarise paragraphs whilst we try and avoid rampant, democracy breaking technology 2.0.
> I’d rather have to wait a while for shiny new feature, than dive head first into the unknown.
Is there a possible world where that is your choice and that vision is not imposed on me ? I fully respect your point of view and strongly believe you should have that option at your disposal.
But I also feel like having an AI model running on my (private) device should be an option available to me if I want to.
You might never get it. Essentially Apple is saying they will need to negotiate with the EU to confirm they can add functionality without being found liable later on. That negotiation could end up in an impasse.
The only 'democracy breaking' I see with social media is all of the incumbents not wanting to deal with opposition and tossing around preposterous rhetoric like it was water in the ocean.
Well, at risk of causing you ire, I won’t regale anecdotally how that one course of mushrooms was somehow better than 15 years of boner weakening, orgasm preventing, suicide ideating, hunger spiking, ever rotating slurry of anti-depressants.
Just can’t put my finger on why they didn’t make me feel better, you know.
Shame. Purchased a V2 suite licence despite being perfectly happy with V1 because I wanted to support them, I don’t see anything good coming from merging with Canva.
Off topic, and if I may be so bold, check out Whitelands. They’re my friends band and they just toured with Slowdive, one to watch out for! (I am 100% biased though).
I’ve thought a fair bit about what the future of music looks like in the age of AI and I’m not convinced that much will change. The ease of making music on computers already set the skill bar super low. In 2021 Spotify reported that 60k tracks are submitted to the platform every day. Will it really make a difference if this number goes up by 10X?
What knowledge workers fear about AI already happened to musicians years ago. There’s a reason that the vast majority of musicians have to work a different job. This new tool will not make much difference to musicians, who are already economically marginalized.
Alternatively, you could argue that the vast majority of released music is already unimaginative rubbish. Industrialising the creation of more of it will make releasing this type of material completely pointless, so perhaps there will be more of a focus on finding original music to cut through the grey goo?
The ML models are a symptom of an already hyper-commoditized world where all the soul and human condition has been sucked out of every instance of creativity. AI is just letting us see it from a distance
BS. There's a hell of a lot of art in commercial art, and trying to make it appealing enough for people to pay for doesn't change that. This glib "no TRUE artist cares about making money" idea, and the closely coupled belief that commercial art isn't real art are just handy mental shortcuts to cop out of considering the economic damage this technology will do to working artists.
I agree completely, but also want to see this tech advance. The purpose of music is not to make it, nor to make money from it. It's to listen to and enjoy it. To the extent that computers help us do that, great.
The purpose of music is not to make it? Tell that to the thousands of composers that feel they were put on this earth to make music. It's our singular purpose.
This is a lot more nuanced that that. My position doesn't conflict with wanting to see this tech advance, and your wanting to see this tech advance does not lend support to your reductive utilitarian philosophical assessment of "the" purpose of any sort of art, as if there's one true one, let alone in the astonishingly broad realm of music.
I can say that I want to see AI enhance medicine, and also think it's ok for doctors to want to be paid for the work they do. I can think the point of medicine is to heal people and not to make money off of it, while still thinking it's bullshit for the organizations to train a model with all of a doctor's diagnoses and fire them, which is essentially what's happening to many commercial artists. An artist can make something solely prompted by a client needing to use it for a product or service and it's still art... in fact, you can tell by the output of most of the available models that the vast majority of images they ingested were in some way commercial, and I'll eat my hat if anyone could make a model like this one without using almost entirely, if not entirely commercial music.
It's going to Destroy sync no question. one of the few avenues artists have left to make an income with music. My personal opinion is that this is wholesale theft. While the technology is dazzling there is just no way suno wasn't trained on vast catalogues of copyrighted music.
What burns me up the most is that these people are walking around like they own the place. They don't. I really hope the NYT prevails in their copyright case. this will open a floodgate of lawsuits that will also be won.
On the creative side of generative AI, AI seems like a parasite that will do nothing more than further concentrate wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people. When all of those robots come online and really start replacing jobs, there will be a reckoning and it's not going to be pretty.
> It's going to Destroy sync no question. one of the few avenues artists have left to make an income with music. My personal opinion is that this is wholesale theft. While the technology is dazzling there is just no way suno wasn't trained on vast catalogues of copyrighted music.
Yeah I've got a couple friends whose bread-and-butter has been sync for a couple decades, and they're really sweating. It's not just good for them, either-- their living off of that work gave them the money, time, and sophistication to hone their other music which benefits many people in many ways. They were even able to release a comedic side-project album after a particularly tragic school shooting for free, to national acclaim. Their being able to do that matters.
> What burns me up the most is that these people are walking around like they own the place. They don't. I really hope the NYT prevails in their copyright case. this will open a floodgate of lawsuits that will also be won.
Honestly, I left the software development business because that exact self-congratulatory unearned hubris that assumes expertise in everything because they understand how the experts' software was made. It's fucking ridiculous. The only people that think generative AI output is equivalent to making art have absolutely no idea how many decisions those algorithms make for the user, how incredibly consequential they are to the piece, and how much the original artists had to work to create them.
The most infuriating thing about this crowd is the arrogant, patronizing decrees many casually throw around about "the true" meaning of art and which artists are worthwhile and all that. They clearly have absolutely no clue what work artists even do in our society– most don't even have a functional definition of art, and couldn't make one piece of art scholarship that discusses it beyond whatever Aristotle they read in freshman Western History class. Their glib opinions are months old, largely adopted from other people in tech looking to justify not paying artists, and are based on some weird combination of fan art, fine art, and hobby art, being completely ignorant to the other 90% of the art world.
> On the creative side of generative AI, AI seems like a parasite that will do nothing more than further concentrate wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people. When all of those robots come online and really start replacing jobs, there will be a reckoning and it's not going to be pretty.
Though I'm a commercial visual artist, and while there are analogs, I think there are important differences in both the market forces and disposition of generative AI in the practices and fields. I think there are some genuinely useful things that generative AI does in professional visual work-- it just doesn't look anything like what these products look like. In video compositing for example, masking foreground objects from background objects is a giant PITA, and a great use case for neural network algorithms. With Nuke's copycat functionality, you can mask an object in one frame in a video and it will replicate that (with varying success) to the rest of it. For 10 seconds of video, otherwise, that would be hundreds of images to individually mask, and it would be totally inconsistent. On a smaller scale is photoshop's foreground/background tools.
Market-wise, i think there's a larger variety of freelance jobs available in may art realms, but they're less reliable and pay worse-- even in graphic design. From the little experience I have in audio, compared to what I do, I think it takes more experience and skill to create a commercially usable lower-end audio deliverable and this can't do it yet, but the market can support far fewer people than the visual market(s) can so it's at even greater risk.
In visual art, lots of businesses are having generative AI make base assets and having their artists essentially clean them up to be professionally usable, which is about as soulless and shitty of a job as you can get. The end-user tools like Canva aren't much of a direct threat in the long-term to graphic designers because the use cases are usually a lot different, but my (less informed) gut says the real threat to commercial musicians is with products like Garage Band. I think there will be enough control to satisfy some art director's use case, and the output will eventually get high enough quality to hand a bunch of tracks to indie producers to "clean up" rather than making complete things, and that output will progressively get better and persistently decimate the market until only high-end specialists remain.
I can see where they’re coming from, but they certainly haven’t set the stage for it to be a something you could deduce without already knowing what they’re referencing.
So to me, it seems they’re referencing the Free Monad, recursion schemes and a little of HomFunctor/Yoneda Lemma.
The free monad gives a coproduct of functions, where the value is either a recursive call or a value (branch vs node). To get from a set to a free monad, you need to define a Functor over the set, and given most things are representable, this is trivial.
Given this free monad, an algebra can be formed over it by providing a catamorphism, where the binary function would indeed be composition.
reply