IMHO it's not about being nice. AITA threads show an interesting phenomenon of social consensus, I think the authors wanted to show that the LLMs they checked don't have that.
I don't think Reddit is a great place to determine social consensus for well adjusted people or representative of the average adult view. I never see people on Reddit have opinions of any the people I consider reasonable in real life and I don't mean politics I wouldn't know, I don't frequent political subreddits.
It seems fairly consistently miserable in any of the common high traffic subs and you have to get down to really niche communities to see what I consider reasonable behavior that matches the behavior of people I know in real life.
The AITA social consensus is a specific kind of groupthink which differs from nearly everyone I know in real life. I assumed yard2010 meant the specific AITA social consensus and not general human agreement.
Even the premise of deciding who's right and who's wrong is miserable. Most problems are like those daisy-chains of padlocks you see on gates in remote areas[0]: there are multiple factors that caused the problem, and removing any factor would remove the problem too.
r/AmItheAsshole is biased towards breaking off relationships rather than fixing them. They also hate social obligations.
e.g. If the OP is asking "I ghosted my friend in AA who insulted me during a relapse", Reddit would say NTA in a heartbeat, while the real world would tell OP to be more forgiving.
On the contrary, if the post was "the other kids at school refuse to play with my child", Reddit would say YTA because the child must've done something to incite being cut off.
Absolutely. I wonder how many parents have been no contacted, SOs broken off with, friendships broken because of the Reddit hivemind's attitude. Pretty sure it's doing a huge amount of societal damage.
> e.g. If the OP is asking "I ghosted my friend in AA who insulted me during a relapse", Reddit would say NTA in a heartbeat, while the real world would tell OP to be more forgiving.
That’s a nuanced discussion. It depends on what you value most, not what “real world” tells you. Most of the time Reddit would be right, because you need to prioritize yourself instead of continuing toxic relationships.
1) Reddit is horrible at nuance, almost non existent in some subs.
2) The toxicity is being defined by reddit to give the advice which is mostly wrong as outlined above.
If OPs had a understanding of what they valued and what is toxic, they probably wouldn't need a advice from biased readers [biased in the sense that they're on that sub].
Yeah every single time I click on one of those posts the top comments are NTA. A couple times I tried randomly opening a few dozen posts and checking the top comments to see if I could find a single YTA and struck out.
Granted many of the OPs are very biased in the poster's favor. Most I've read fall into one of two buckets: either they want to gripe about some obviously bad behavior, or it's a controved and likely fake story.
The problem with any of these is that they are so incredibly biased towards the author's frame of reality (understandably so).
Who among us are able to 1) Understand a 2nd persons view of a issue we're in and 2) have the ability/courage to write it in a post seeking advice.
My point is that the author will specifically frame the problem clearly on their side. Occasionally redditors will seek additional questions but rarely.
If it is the AITA subreddit (or one of many similar ones) it might not be that bad. It is after all dedicated to outrage farming, so there will be many human responses. It is just the original posts that are all baits, and it doesn't really matter if they are made by LLMs or as a creative writing exercise.
Though interestingly, the observed difference in assessment suggests (though does not prove) that sampled AITA posters are not one of these models. I guess it’s possible they have a very different prompt though…
Higher sound quality? I'm not sure the DAC powering the wired headphones would be any better (at powering those specific headphones) that the one built into the wireless ones, that's a baseless claim.
There is digital compression, but the original media you'll play will already be compressed, and good-enough digital compression is not noticeable unless you're using a good DAC with a good pair of studio headphones.
If you're in professional audio production, get a decent DAC and something like the M50x headphones, if you want to play stuff off your phone, just use a wireless option.
If you have the slightest knowledge of classical music you would know it should not be mixed like in a dj set, and you would not optimize your dj algorithm for it.
I think you could pick out a movement from this and then a movement from that. I can see somebody wanting to have classical music playing all day without having to pick out specific tracks, like listening to the radio.
I think the auto DJ feature is already well capable of that: having tracks playing the all day.
But if you want to preserve the original composition of classical music, you have to play the track start to finish, preferably with a small pause between tracks as well.
You are very right, using a generalized LLM in combination with good music search and metadata tools works very well for this sort of thing. I know because I built a platform that does this. The big limiter isn't the tech, it's what the rights-holders will allow. They maintain tight control over their catalogs because renting that intellectual property is their entire business model. This makes them very cautious about letting any actually useful AI near their music and metadata.
> you would know it should not be mixed like in a dj set, and you would not optimize your dj algorithm for it.
Yet the computer program happily tried to do it anyway. It would be much better to fail with a clear error message than to try to proceed and emit garbage.
Yeah, if he wants to listen to your complete albums, it’s unclear to me why he would be using a DJ feature or expected the DJ to do that. Just play the albums manually or set up playlist. It’s like having a six CD changer and putting it on shuffle and then complaining that it shuffles.
Interesting, i never heard of anything similar before, but i'm quite sure the classical music fans would also hate on him for ruining the original compositions.
I love electronic renditions of classical music. Trance does this often (Tiesto, Armin van Buuren, William Orbit, Ferry Corsten and others) and it's some of the best work they put out. To me, it's like a natural progression from classical minimalism, such as Phillip Glass or Max Richter.
I've played the violin since I was a kid (only for fun now). I can find something I love about almost any musical genre and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
The blend of classical and techno must come from the techno side. I remember many years ago listening to CBC Radio as they breathlessly talked about some avant garde classical piece that purported to blend classical and techno. It was a mid tier modern classical composition with occasional cheap synth sound effects. And this was ten years after Portishead released their entire first album, recorded with an orchestra, or all the work that Massive attack was doing.
William Orbit did an album of electronic arrangements of classical music 25 years ago. Not that it prevents anyone else from doing it. But it's not a completely novel idea.
Remixing art has been done since the invention of art. It doesn't ruin anything if the original work is preserved.
No one is required to like it. But the word 'hate' is a bit extreme, even in your example. Also, the group comprising "the classical music fans" is certain to include many who disagree with you.
I consider myself a "fan of classical music". We go to Philharmonic a few times a year and I own a remarkable collection of classical music. And I do go to parties and love techno...
That's not the full story, you're right that they "could switch", but would they actually?
Good, working and efficient public transit still means having significantly less comfort compared to having your private vehicle. Pretty much the only exception is using the metro in a congested downtown area at peak traffic (still, your metro experience will also be degraded by the peak traffic), or perhaps if parking your vehicle will be very difficult. And i say this as someone in a rather big city in Europe who is currently only using public transit. And there is a lot of stuff that i'd like to do but i can't do since i currently don't have access to a car or motorbike.
People don't just want "useful", at least the majority of people in developed countries also want "comfortable", and "nice", and "easy", and "enjoyable". A peak-hour metro ride or missing your tram by one minute is none of that.
I would settle for "available". Where I live, i have a 40 minute commute to work by car. I live in a suburb of a midsize american city.
When i bought my house, i looked into public transportation options. Instead of a 40 minute car ride, i could drive for 5 minutes and then take 3 hours (and 2 bus transfers) to get to my office by bus.
I would love to get some reading done on my commute, and would be willing to spend an hour on a bus or train instead of 40 minutes fighting traffic in my car, but it's just not really feasable. I think this situation is extremely common.
Having lived in multiple european cities with decent to good public transport, a 40 minute car commute almost always means you live outside the city. In that case, your public transport experience will just suffer a lot (public transport is more efficient with higher densities of living).
Being outside the city you'll have fewer vectors with less frequency (more than 30mins in between), which will get you in the city somewhere, and from that you'll take city-local public transport to your final destination.
I'd say in this case the 40 min car commute turns into 1h 20, with some luck too.
If the next bus/tram isn't almost there when you miss the previous then it isn't nearly as useful.
there are things you can't do with transit. However nearly everyone is living in a family - so keep the truck to tow the boat, but get rid of the other cars that you won't need if transit is good. That is a much more reasonably goal that transit can aim for. A few like you won't own a car/truck at all, but most won't need to go that far
It's a bad faith question or one so deeply uninformed that parent is correct. It only takes a couple clicks to see the ideas of the people who are "just asking questions".
I think a lot of people have lost faith in the ability of the world to come all together and make the necessary sacrifices to make a difference. Especially when some parts of the world are in competition with each other and not making these sacrifices allows them an edge.
Also another group of people have realized they are not willing to forgo all their petty and unnecessary comforts nor are they willing to pay any price increases that would be required to adopt less economical but more sustainable services or production methods.
I don't think there's been any big change in climate change believers/deniers, but i do think some people have started accepting that we're doomed and that there is no "practical" solution. And if you think you're doomed, you might as well skip the sacrifices and enjoy your last days (decades) to the fullest.
Basically, on the average, people don't have ability to think rationally into the future. Most people think only 1 level of cause and effect.
Right now, for the vast majority of people, global warming isn't a problem when your house has AC, your car has AC, your workplace has AC. When you are forced to do things that you see no direct effect of, it makes it seem less important, and its a self reinforcing cycle where you see other people not doing it and you wonder why you have to make your life harder.
People will start caring only when their direct lives are affected. So unfortunately, the only way to fix global warming is to let it get bad enough to where there is enough death and destruction for people to start paying attention.
"People aren't willing to pay price increases" is interesting. Of course that's what they say when you ask them directly. Yet everyone is currently paying massive price increases as a result of covid-era money printing. I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily but what it shows it that it has been possible in very recent times that a collecive decision was made which increased general prices for everyone.
People are largely unaware of the sources of those price increases, at least in the US, which is why they were such a successful bludgeon in recent elections.
> that a collecive decision was made which increased general prices for everyone
I think you're referring to inflation with that? I wouldn't necessarily say that inflation is the result of a "decision", certainly not a direct decision of any single person nor any collective group. Economies can move around in weird and unpredictable ways, and they are also quite intertwined at the global level making policy decisions even more complicated and unpredictable.
The "money printing" decision wasn't made by asking the public: "would you like to help our economy and businesses and our essential public services in this tragic event? Oh btw you'll be paying for all of this with inflation, are you still sure?". Politicians tend to conveniently leave the second part out, and also, this questions wasn't asked to the public at all. I believe a sizeable amount of the public would've responded "no, let the people die, let the businesses die, i'm not paying for them".
Which is why for example, in many democracies with tools of direct democracy, such tools cannot affect fiscal policy, because people are dumb and they would just say "i want all of the welfare and zero of the taxes", bringing the country to ruin.
It's not really a collective decision, it's the decision of governments, but also it was a temporary decision (basically every pandemic in history lasted a maximum of about 3 years), not a permanent one.
With a longer time-frame, there is time for people to elect new governments, and guess what would happen when a new politician comes along pitching: "hey i will stop all this green stuff which costs money and i'll give it to you curing poverty and making you richer, the other countries are still polluting who cares anyway". Meanwhile the other politicians pitch is: "No we have to make sacrifices to reduce our emissions, we can give up some comforts or pay more for them".
I believe it would be more accurate to say: "I believe in free speech but only from accredited researchers. Oh btw the government can also make laws to control such accreditation"
reply