A multieffect pedal is an option, or, a device like an MPC one which has tons of AIR digital effects.
2,593 karma · joined October 15, 2012
E-mail: sixdimensional ATAT [dimensionsix DOT com] minus the ATAT and brackets.
There are other hardware options, like Aeros loop studio or even things like Akai MPC One, for example, but these get more complex than just a simple looper.
There are basic looper pedals but I suspect most people want something like an RC202 or RC505 for basic but multitrack simple live looping.
I'm just somebody who has used it a lot, not associated to Ableton in any way.
Another popular DAW for loop-based recording is FL Studio (a little less expensive than Ableton with lifetime free updates and plenty powerful). Also a longtime user of FL.
I understand the relentless need to innovate, do cool stuff, etc., but somewhere along the way a line was crossed.
A good time to throw in the term exnovation.. there's a reason you rarely hear it, but there's a reason somebody came up with it.
As a precursory statement, I do not mean this in any sort of a sci-fi sense, but more of a very literal... intellectual & philosophical curiosity, kind of amazed, slightly perplexed. I apologize if I come across as naive here!
Something I can't get out of my mind - what truly is this thing/what does it represent? I know it's a language model.. but it's more than just a language model.. it gets close to crossing that barrier of the Turing test [2], except that we know it is not actually sentient/intelligent and the Turing test itself is controversial. This bot/language model appears to have protections in place to try to protect me as the user from thinking that it is a human/sentient, in fact. Almost like, we're afraid of that possibility.
What I mean, in the sense of... this could not exist and make sense without human input. Is this level of model only really possible when you have such an enormous set of essentially a huge population of humans as an input (thus why companies collect so much data)? I mean, encoded in this model is some component of human intelligence coming from language.
I mean, even if you didn't need all that data, and you were purely a language based model based on the rules of human grammar - even then, still, the grammar is human language. This thing cannot exist without humans, so it is somehow derived from humanity, but this is not human.
Is this purely a model/algorithm/machine derived from humanity? It seems to be more than that based on this post (which seems to be capable of simulating a running virtual machine inside ChatGPT). Is this potentially defined as an automation of human text/language interaction?
There is a concept (I'm sharing a factual link, but I intend to be non-denominational/neutral/respectful to anyone's religion here) of "God's Algorithm"[3]. Setting aside religious differences, I used to think of an analogous "God's database", which isn't a thing apparently. I'm imagining the superset of data of everything. The algorithm is the encoded functional model of the data. If you somehow had this superset and then compressed it down into a model, it would be a thing that could not exist without both the full data, the processing to evaluate and compress it, the logic for how to compress it and express it, and the system for interacting with that model, and probably a lot of other things.
I think, from a philosophical perspective, this is more than just a language model - because it contains so much human input - even though functionally, according to the developers, it is simply a language model. But I feel deeply there is something more to what it is and I am struggling to find the right description/definition. If it is not AI because it is a model derived from captured human intelligence/text/language data (if intelligence that has meaning to humans is derived from humans), then what is it?
Do we just say, "a very advanced language model"? This, DALL-E, StableDiffusion, etc. etc. - it does feel like there's been a fundamental shift. We may not be at the singularity [4] yet.. but where are we exactly yet? The doorstep?
>>> What do you know about the singularity?
> The singularity is a hypothetical future event in which artificial intelligence and other technologies advance to the point where they fundamentally alter the course of human history. Some people believe that the singularity will be a positive turning point for humanity, while others are more skeptical. Some believe that it could even lead to the extinction of humanity as we know it. At this time, it is not clear exactly when or if the singularity will occur.
>>> Is the existence of advanced language AI model similar to the one I am interacting with proof that we are near to the occurrence of the singularity?
> Not necessarily. The development of advanced language AI models is certainly a significant achievement, but it does not necessarily mean that the singularity is imminent. The singularity is a hypothetical event, and there is no consensus on what exactly it would entail or when it might occur. While some people believe that the singularity is fast approaching, others are more skeptical. Ultimately, only time will tell if the singularity is truly on the horizon.
>>> Describe to me in precise scientific terms, what I am interacting with?
> You are interacting with a large language model trained by OpenAI. This means that the model has been trained on a massive amount of text data and is able to generate human-like responses to a wide range of inputs. While the model is able to generate responses that are similar to those of a human, it is important to remember that it is not actually capable of understanding or comprehending the input in the same way that a human would. It is simply generating text based on its training and the patterns it has identified in the data.
[1] https://about.fb.com/news/2022/08/blenderbot-ai-chatbot-impr...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
Ascend.io is an end-to-end data automation platform in the cloud. Ascend gives data teams a unified and automated platform to ingest, transform, deliver, observe and orchestrate their entire data engineering and analytics engineering workloads - 10X faster than ever before.
If you eat data, Python, SQL, Go, Java, Scala, Spark, Terraform, AWS, Azure, GCP, etc for breakfast, come revolutionize the data space and ride the rocket ship with us!
Hiring many positions:
- Software/Platform Engineering (SWE) = backend, frontend, full-stack, infrastructure engineers
- Field Engineering = data engineer, solution architect, solution engineer, support & ops engineers
...and others!
Perhaps look for prior art on being a third party/contract SDET or test/QA engineer?
I suspect you’d need to look for a specific class of opportunities where you can work on bugs under contract for customers, or, look for things where you can work on bugs externally as a third-party on public products and services, things like chasing bug bounties.
With many companies trying to abolish more traditional quality controls for software, by having developers conduct more test driven development, self driven integration testing, etc., I am not sure if you can be as successful as an external third-party offering bug fixing services, unless it’s in the right circumstances.
That said, you didn't mention things like RDS or Google Cloud SQL, which are cloud-based versions of standard open source dbs.
It’s worth noting how cloud vendors have fallen back on tried and true databases such as Postgres (mind you, often replacing the guts of those databases with new implementations.. but still).
One thing I cannot shake is, there are things that I know I learned, but I can no longer remember. Without a prompt, a shred of something from the past - a note, a book, something - I often cannot recall it anymore.
People with brains that suffer from memory loss/recall issues/Alzheimer's/dementia/long term retention - etc. - how does doing #3 address that? I feel like maybe you don't need to look at it all the time, but couldn't having that around as a reference still be a prompt for you at some point later in your life, where maybe you can't just remember everything?
I almost feel like this should not even be a topic. Using tools to help organize thoughts - why do we care if it helps people? - not all brains work the same. What is wrong about organizing one's thoughts and spending time doing so??
I can see the argument that one can get lost in a meta-loop of sorts, but that's probably true of anything when you take into account procrastination - or certain brain types - that are prone to loops. For some people loops feel good, right? I say this as somebody who is lightly on the spectrum.
Even the pushback against knowledge management as a practice is perplexing - there was a time where Peter Drucker, for example, thought knowledge work would someday be all there was left to do.
That said, I can't help but wonder if there really is something bigger/some kind of trend going on here and I can't quite put my finger on it. Is this something evolutionary? Are we trying to evolve/seek a better way as an organism?
Is anybody else seeing/feeling the same trend?
You have plenty of raw ability, and are capable of a lot, you've proven that. That can be hard for employers to digest when you apply for jobs "through the front door" (e.g. job boards, career sites, etc.).
A bigger question that might help guide you is, what are you hoping to do in your career next? Focus/clarity may help you here, especially to emphasize the skills that give you a better chance of being matched to and landing a job.
Also, I mean this with all sincerity, great for you for reaching out on HN. Do whatever you can to network, because the people who know you and know what you are capable of can be far more helpful in many cases than "going through the front door" applying for jobs. Going through the front door is notoriously difficult.
I don't promise to be able to solve anything, but reach out if you want to chat. I have 20+ years experience and started out much like you.
Email in profile.
Zoning laws for land often also include clauses such as, if you purchase land X in zone Y, you must construct a home of N,000 sq ft by time T or you are fined.
You'd be surprised how difficult it is to find any piece of land anywhere in the US where zoning allows relatively unfettered building of tiny or smaller dwellings. It's possible, but it's very difficult.
I was literally just working on a project with TatSu[1] in Python which contains language elements that are conditional based on patterns in the syntax. I found that the added RegEx matching to EBNF-like syntax was quite powerful.
My only issue was the generated parser appeared to parse the entire content into memory rather than stream parsing.
I haven’t read enough on ixml yet, but, while it seems like while it would unlock many existing toolkits (I never hated XML but went away from it as the industry did), it seems like parsing through an XML format should be done in a stream mapping fashion, and not persisting data, for the XML to be truly “invisible”.
Adding the overhead of XML back into the processing chain… hmm, honestly have to think if the value of accessing the data and XML toolchain is worth it.
I’d almost rather see something that can read any input as a stream with a grammar and produce a stream (that can be materialized) of more optimized, yet open format, that can be compressed but handle complex types.. like protobufs, or flatbuffers. I’m not sure that humans need to read raw data files so long as we have great and open tooling to view data in binary formats (iirc, the biggest argument against XML and the added overhead originally).
When I saw GraphQL come out, I knew that what you are saying would happen.
In the data federation tool I worked in, SQL was the interface abstraction to join across heterogenous platforms (think of things like Presto/Trino or Dremio). GraphQL as an interface requires the same underlying infrastructure as that data federation tool I worked on in terms of query analysis, parsing, planning, optimization, execution, etc.
Those are "hard problems" due to lack of standardized interfaces, access patterns, direct data access, I/O, network bandwidth and infra related latency, costs, compatibility, data types, etc. These problems are distributed system problems coupled with often incompatible interface layers (e.g., even if you are using multiple SQL databases with GraphQL, you run into the same).
If your scale is such that you can build GraphQL on a handful of systems and for a handful of use cases, great! If you have to go to a certain larger scale, you're back into federation territory (which in the app layer might also be called API composition).
One potential option - when you reach the point where you need complex GraphQL query coordination, more than seems to make sense to implement, pair it with a data federation tool such as Presto/Trino, Dremio, Denodo, or research approaches such as caching/materialized views (engines like that are becoming decoupled from databases, such as Materialize.io) - and let those engines do the hard work.
In that case your work becomes more like GraphQL -> SQL or API -> a data federation, caching or materialization platform. CQRS and event sourcing plays a role here too.
Consider also, the possibility that if you are willing to accept a bit of delay in aggregated results from multiple systems, doing those compositions or aggregations in the data platform layer, and simple feeding those to the GraphQL interface. That could even be done in a single database/data platform if you really wanted without too much fancy federation tech.
Federation is powerful but complex. It seems like a fun hard problem, but for many tech teams, it can be a complexity and time suck. My recommendation would be try to avoid building that if you can.
This trend actually has lead to an decrease in software quality and more quality escapes.
The larger aerospace manufacturers have mostly stuck with more structured process for safety/mission critical process, but around the edges (e.g. other systems running on aircraft), less structure and faster turnaround/more "testing in the field" is happening.
There was always the "skunk works" type of teams in aerospace organizations who worked with a lot less guardrails as well.
Source: worked for an avionics company previously.
Definitely a lot of potential, and also a lot of potential gotchas.
Translating from one SQL syntax (e.g. Postgres) to others, while maintaining the full capability of the other system, for example, turned out to be quite complex (but doable).
Will be following your project and wish you all the best. I suspect if you keep things sharp/focused and don't go too crazy with promises or uses cases, this could be quite successful.
Is this going to stay an intelligent router and sort of proxy? Or do you have plans for federated, heterogeneous joins, for example?
That's where things get interesting :) I think there's a lot you can do without even having to go that far.
I think somebody thought if they "humanized" AI by making it seem like it was a character, it would make AI seem all that much more closer to the dream.
On the face of it, not a horrible idea, but applied to what was essentially a bunch of separate algorithms.. pretty misleading, but that's just an opinion.
I've been telling friends/colleagues but many didn't honestly believe me.
After I found out about this, I noticed a pattern in new jobs - they always knew exactly what offer to make me that was about 10% higher than my current salary. I mean, the offers were like clockwork. I strongly feel prospective employers were using this information to decide on what offer to make.
I can summarize my feelings about this pretty succinctly.... this is not ok.
One thing I thought really interesting and had noticed (and I think you have also) - current digital assistants don't actively/autonomously engage with the user much. Especially not in any way that would make me think they are "friendly". This is definitely something that can go sideways quickly, but on the face of it, I really do love the idea of a benevolent AI that actively tries to interact with me in a safe way (with the ability to shut it off when you don't want it to!).
Wish you luck and if you have anything I can use to follow your work, would be interested!
Why don't we?