Readit NewsI think of it this way: there are two symbols that by coincidence are written the same (two aligned dots). I mean that genuinely (as in, I actually think of them as separate things), but it also helps as an explanative device.
The first I'll call the prefatory or label(ing) colon. Its usage matches usage in English [2], where the text preceding the colon introduces the text after the colon, or the thing on the left is a label or name for the thing on the right. For example, it is used to start a block (as in Python), or to define a key-value pair, or define a name-value pair in a struct (as in C or Rust).
The second is the type annotation. This syntax is borrowed from mathematics. It is a binary relation, and binary relations are written with equal space on the left and right. Just as you'd never write "x= 1" (another relation), "x> y" (relation), or "x+ z" (operator), you'd never write "x: X". Instead you write "x = 1", "x > y", and "x + z" or "x+z" instead.
Whenever I see "a: b", I immediately think labeling colon. Despite having seen it thousands of times, I always have to perform an additional mental step (however trivial) when it turns out to be a type annotation; it takes a small amount of mental energy to dismiss each instance of syntax that looks wrong.
[Truthfully, I'm somewhat baffled how it would ever even cross anyone's mind when designing a language to write type annotations like "x: X" given the long-established, pre-existing precedent in mathematics and the way its semantics seem backwards (if you had to use a labeling colon, "X: x" would make much more sense to me).]
edit: I should be explicit that I'm referring to programming language syntax, and that I much prefer "x : X" over "X x" (there are good reasons I think for the type to be on the right-hand side, but other people have already written about that).
[1] "Evangelion" is a really lovely word, from εὐαγγέλιον good news = εὐ- good + ἄγγελος messenger, the double gamma pronounced even in ancient Greek as "ŋg" ("ng") rather than "ːg" ("g").
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colon_(punctuation)#Usage_in_E...
Even in myself I'm finding curious emotional responses: I'm now growing less interested in some of the more synthesized / formulaic types of music, and more interested in live performances / recording with real instruments. For visual art that is art, that to me usually needs some human emotion, message, story, path. For "art" that is placeholder or functional, yeah a lot of that may get replaced by AI.
My point to this particular article is though, if their sum contribution to the world is the analogue of:
1. Short one-sentence prompt to AI that's basically "piano, but tear-shaped"
2. 37 paragraphs of self-aggrandizing meaningless prose that actively deceives on the accomplishment and status of the thing
Then it's not "human creativity" as far as I'm concerned, or at least not one that I want to actively encourage (and in fact, as I mentioned, I want to actively discourage / not partake in).
In other words, I'm not saying AI should be doing the kind of things exemplified in that article rather than humans. I'm saying I don't want to see / partake those kinds of things [if not quite "they shouldn't exist":], and it's partially because they don't contribute any human creativity, as far as I'm concerned. That's very different from "not seeing value in human creativity", so I think we may have misunderstood each other there?
But you're right, we probably misunderstood each other there. You definitely won the argument though :)
It's still crazy to me how people use Viber en masse in a lot of those places. The UX is abysmal and it's full of manipulative ads. Habits are hard to change.
- if you're going to try to solve an actual challenge, improve on something, truly consider the design and purpose and limits and compromises and propose a different approach, brilliant
- but if all you're going to do is make a random somewhat pretty twist on existing thing, without actually considering the use, the purpose, the engineering, the what's and how's and why's, then... I'm kinda with him. What value did you add,that prompt to midjourney "create a spiral piano" wouldn't have?
I'm somewhat shocked by this overwhelmingly positive reaction to AI replacing human creativity so I may be overreacting? It just doesn't sit right with me — trading human subtlety for raw efficiency — but to each their own.
like if you’re going to waste everyone’s time, don’t waste your own too
just embarrasing
How might something dated from the future be found? I'm not certain, but maybe it has to do with aliens that are all the rage nowadays.
If I were 12 years old, I would have been born 12 years ago.
2023
- 12
----
2011
2023
- -12
----
2035
Thanks.