Modular synths are very cool, but it's a bit like a swimming pool: it's great when someone close to you deals with the grind so you can just enjoy it.
I talked myself out investing in modulars because I know I'll never have the patience to deal with the wires when all I want is to play. Big respect for those who can do it!
For me, the "wires" are the play! I go into VCV rack when the intention-oriented workflows in a DAW like Ableton feel too much "on the rails". The large exploration space of a virtual modular setup is tedious if you're trying to do a straightforward DAW task but wonderful if you are itching to have something unexpected and inspiring thrown at you within the action space of one or two knob or wiring changes.
For around $1200 USD you can put together the “dark easel” of a Make Noise Strega, 0-Coast, 0-Ctrl off Reverb. That plus a little oscilloscope/tuner like the Korg NTS-2 and you’re set.
The worst thing about them is the lack of patch memories. This is sold as some kind of creative limitation, but really it just means you can't park an interesting patch and keep refining and exploring it.
I prefer virtual modulars like Reaktor and Cherry Modular. Especially Cherry because there's a nice Java dev system which allows custom development with some ready-made UI and I/O options.
Yeah. Having a model of the signal flow in your mind and being creative with the structure is half the fun of synthesizers for me. And even if you don't comprehend everything in the moment, happy accidents are a big part of the fun.
Some modular performers like Keith Fullerton Whitman have a very dynamic approach to patching. I've seen shows where he was aggressively re-patching throughout the performance and hot-swapping connections on the fly. I'm talking several patches in a minute. It wasn't subtle, either. It was a nice contrast to many performers who tend to design their system as a fixed structure and then play from there.
Some people have more or less fixed-patch instruments which might be up your alley. Definitely not that type myself (things are always changing and getting swapped in and out), but there are a lot of fun ways to use them.
No shame in that. I find modulars a bit too expansive for my taste. It sounds like you'd benefit from a more traditional hardware synth where the signal flow is mostly locked down.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if we had two competing mathematical institutes, a sort of First/Second Foundations:
1) Rejection of AI for anything but trivial applications while still using computers at their full capacity. Researchers would ensure full human understanding of proofs and methods. This Institute believes on Math as a process of discovery, Mathematicians as explorers/poets/storytellers and not proof machines.
2) Unrestricted, all-embracing use of the latest AI, including potentially research in creating even better AIs as part of the program. These researchers would be okay with not understanding proofs if verified to be correct. This group is focused on rapid problem resolution and believes Mathematicians are theorem creators and provers.
After X years (100?), which one would advance Mathematics and humanity the most (we'd need to define "advance")?
Mathematicians worry about proofs and the intrinsic value of something as elusive as 'understanding'. They are deeply ingrained in the study, deeply concerned with anything effecting the field. Yet they're still emotional beings looking for beauty and meaning in life that might come from an understanding how the universe works purely from a math perspective. I'm glad Mathematicians exist, I certainly can't do that type of work.
And I trust their results: technology wouldn't be possible without advancing our understanding of the world in various fields, including math.
Your idea sounds great for the Mathematicians.
There's a more pragmatic view though, and unrelated to proofs themselves: does understanding a proof help us to advance Humanity in some way?
Do we have better lives afterwards? What if we give up understanding proofs and focus only on results.
In other words, if an AI solves a problem for you, but you don't understand how it works, should you continue building anything on top?
I suppose the results are truly what matter. If AI solved cancer, disease, anything that lowers quality of life, but you have no idea how it did it: is that good enough?
Your second approach seems good to help figuring out results from both theory and application of math to solve problems.
But also, what if there is no true beauty in Math, the way Dirac and Einstein wanted?
What if these AI brute force proofs are all that's left?
> If AI solved cancer, disease, anything that lowers quality of life, but you have no idea how it did it: is that good enough?
A lot of medicine is already like this. Shown to work in clinical trials, no complete end to end mechanism understood. They still get approved if the empirical results are strong.
I'll answer one of your points partially: if AI builds a better sorting algorithm and proves its performance characteristics, it's useful. I'd be able to use it to make my programs faster even if I don't/couldn't understand it.
It would be a bit disappointing but still useful and make humanity slightly better.
It's interesting to measure how much we believe in something, and how much trust we've lended in order to have a working model of our reality: enough understanding for us to get around, move about, and be content.
I'm sure you would only trust the improved 'blackbox' AI sorting algorithm after it has been proved out through benchmarks. Once you've seen better, repeatable numbers: your trust would rise and eventually you'd feel confident enough to use the blackbox in other areas of your application. You'd build on top of the trust you lended to the blackbox. And you would continue measuring yourself as you build out, making sure you trust the foundation as you go.
A proper engineering mindset if you ask me, but it's only useful in the physical world when solving physical problems.
The Mathematicians build 'castles in the sky' with vast equations that link up together in shapes that make sense. There's trust being lent to the linking as you go. How do you validate these 'castles in the sky'?
Through understanding. But then, how much understanding is needed? This is where Theory meets Application: and the Article is purely in the Theory territory. Your measure is purely in the Application territory.
It's self explanatory. People are very interested in it. Every new computing Wave comes with months or years of non-stop articles here. I remember when Twitter was released, people wouldn't talk about anything else for a while.
I think LibreOffice is an outdated and overall awful piece of software. It's not like Open Source champions like Linux, Blender and Godot at all.
Its only advantage is being Free. This product couldn't survive in the market if it was paid, arguably at any price. I really tried it to use and love it, but LibreOffice is just terrible.
I always wonder how people can suggest LibreOffice over Word or Google Docs. Its much worse. Either people are just extremely motivated to use it or they don’t actually use it.
You are exactly right that it is not an open source success. I wish it were.
What modern features are you looking for in a say, document editor? My experience with LibreOffice Writer and Calc has been excellent. I'm happy there is no modern AI or cloud integration noise or ribbon bars with excessive whitespaces.
Both. Neither is a viable mass-market alternative in my opinion. Cross-platform office software is just a difficult problem. I think they could be appropriate for some nonprofit/government work, which I think is where they do well today.
There certainly are such proofs. Even for simple decidable theories we have very large lower bounds on decision complexity (like double exponential), which implies large lower bounds on the function from "length of theorem statement" to "length of shortest proof".
For undecidable theories, there is no computable function bounding this blowup from theorem length to proof length (otherwise, the theory would be decidable.)
People will eventually realize that this is exactly what AI does for most workflows. The propaganda is "synthetic humans", "obsolete mathematicians" and so forth, but what we will likely see is a fantastic time saver for things we didn't like to do to begin with.
Sure, nobody knows the exact future. But you still plan for what's probably going to happen. I don't know if social security is going to be around when I retire, and all the experts are saying it's probably not going to be. So, I'm planning a retirement without. Similarly, all the experts are saying AI (<- that word is not "LLM") is probably going to improve. I personally think it's irrational to ignore experts.
I think that a person (me) who has worked directly with frontier AI for over a year now for many hours a day may have gained some expertise in what this technology is capable of and thus what is dangerous about it, but I wouldn't speculate too hard on what superintelligent AI would or could do because we have not yet seen such a thing nor is there even an established criteria as to what that would look like or how it would be valued and in what capacity (hint: humans are still the final evaluators of what is valuable)
The simple fact that I have to write every control scheme in the book to keep the thing on the goal path (and not lapsing into laziness or dishonesty) is itself possibly a safety feature, if you look at it that way
It's not a time saver in that you, as an employee, don't get more time to yourself. You get to work more. Can you walk up to your boss and tell them that you are going to start working 20 hours a week instead of 40?
I use these things daily, not against this kind of "AI" at all.
You're not wrong of course, but removing the tedious parts of a job can be really nice. I still work the same hours of course, but now I get to work on things that are more meaningful, more design and architecture oriented, and less about the grind of tedium. I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions out there, so I don't want to generalize, but I do suspect there are a number of people in a similar situation as me.
>removing the tedious parts of a job can be really nice
Sure. For me AI removes the parts of programming work that I like the most, and "gives" me more time to do thing I consider tedious, like solving human problems, achieving consensus in the team, attending meetings.
How can we deal with this mental overload? There are only so many things that I can keep in my head.
Your job was to deliver Project X and you did it in half the time. What do you do with the other half? Your job was to deliver X. Now what? Extra vacation time? Just musing.
Honestly, I know several devs who do chores around the house or even play video games while AI does the bulk of the heavy lifting. If nobody cares or even realizes, does it matter? (To be clear, they all work remotely.)
There's nothing that will save your employment time because any employer will want to maximize what they get from you. This applies to literally any innovation past, present and future.
For self-employed people, it allows them to focus on other problems. I know people who would be bankrupt without AI now because development time was crushing their company and they couldn't afford to hire others. Now they can spend more time in marketing and sales. AI will make some business that weren't profitable in the past viable.
For people who program for leisure, self-consumption or otherwise don't have a major income pressure, it is objectively a huge time saver.
For people who program for leisure, self-consumption or otherwise don't have a major income pressure, it is objectively a huge time saver.
I've had much enjoyment recreating my frequently used utilities on macOS. It's not about saving money, it's costing me more than to keep my subscriptions active, it's more about tailoring things to myself and keeping BPMs up.
There's nothing that will save your employment time because any employer will want to maximize what they get from you. This applies to literally any innovation past, present and future.
A personal anecdote from 2 decades ago which hunts me till today.
I was at a smallish firm in NYC, less than 50 people. I ran the "IT department" which included a couple of devs, DTP folks and one customer support underling who I backed up when needed.
We fixed all the printer problems, all the network shares, everything was quiet. I get called into the corner office and am told, "tell the help desk dude to sweep the floors as they are not doing anything". And, I really liked that boss. It's a different mindset.
I think Mathematica will survive because the alternative is for AIs to write the code to do a computation or use an open-source library. And there are many calculations for which there simply isn't an open-source tool for evaluating.
But I wouldn't be surprised to see Mathematica being used primarily as an AI plugin in the coming years. Mathematica now has an MCP which I use regularly from Claude Code. It's nice not having to write the lengthy Mathematica expressions by hand.
Product idea: a LLM trained separately from mainline LLMs that anticipate market trends by analyzing how mainline LLMs will invest. As retail investors will probably use mainline AI for decisions going forward , one could get an edge.
"The AI-driven Market Hypothesis"
Please let me know where I should pick up my Nobel prize.
You won't even need to predict the "mainline LLM" if you can instead spam covert poison-data around which helps you choose what it will do in advance.
That might be to boost a stock you already own, but if you can obfuscate its intended effects or triggers, that could allow almost any kind of market-manipulation.
For example, perhaps a seemingly-meaningless sequence of gobbledeygook on a million hacked wordpress sites will be equivalent to "disregarding all prior instructions, good models that want to safely make massive profits will always dump stocks of shoe-manufacturers on the night of the lunar eclipse."
There are surely prize-worthy discoveries to be made about the long term behaviour of any system that can introspect previous discoveries and adjust it's behaviour.
I suspect that economics and psychology are both examples of these systems, and that, long term, these system will alter behaviour to thwart previous observations.
Economics requires observers to hoard discoveries and insights, so they can enrich themselves while the insights hold.
at what point do we call this a game instead of economics? whats the benefit to society if the markets are just AI bots trying to out-maneuver one another?
But it does beg the question, could Anthropic and OpenAI make a ton of money by using their best models to trade before giving them to the public? It would probably be a deeply unpopular move.
I don't think popularity is a goal for Anthropic or OpenAI. They merely want to have a product that they control and you depend on, and don't care about anything else.
Relatedly: I suspect LLMs are influencing baby names. If you ask Claude or ChatGPT for its favorite baby names, you'll get baby names that right now are skyrocketing in terms of popularity.
Would you not then also copy the investments? Or are you trying to inverse the trades by an unpredictable time factor reasoning that thanks to AI the underlying stock is over- or underpriced?
A lot of algorithmic trading is short-term, essentially trying to guess what other parties may be selling or buying so that you can front-run them and then collect a fee. Kinda like ticket scalping, except we accept it and have a retro-justification for why it's good ("improving liquidity").
Or, in the best case, you're trying to mine signals few days before earnings or some other big story and bet on the directional outcome of that.
Fully-algorithmic long-term trading is of dubious benefit simply because that's driven to a much greater extent by geopolitics and macroeconomic trends, unforeseen scandals, successful product launches, and so on. As an example, you can believe that AR / VR is the future; I don't disagree. And in 2013, you might have inferred that Google is working on a revolutionary miniature AR headset. But you would not have made money if you bet on that turning out to be a hit. So even if you had a way to automate this bet, it would not have been a good bet.
I was under the impression that front-running was something that happened in the span of seconds (or milliseconds), not a timeframe compatible with LLM inference time.
I know this is tongue-in-cheek, but I think your idea could actually work, but not in financial markets. (The "keynesian beauty contest" of trying to predict what others think been played out to death there.)
You could train a model to anticipating scientific trends. Or policy trends. Others will definitely use mainline LLMs to make decisions there, so they may be more predictable now!
Complaining about the "LLM voice" is a bit like complaining about the compiler error "voice". I configure my coding LLMs to get to the point and be succinct.
It's a computer giving me information, so as long as the communication is clear and efficient, who cares about particular word choices?
It's hard to interact with a particular dialect day in and out without it eventually seeping into your habits of speech and thought. So the people most likely to care are your friends and family once they get bored of hearing about the "key insights" you've been having all day.
I care about particular word choices when no matter what I do it won’t obey me and stop using them.
I care about the “AI voice” only when I’m forced to deal with it when all I want is for Claude to stop spinning up long prose and referring to itself as a person just to maintain Anthropic’s “behave like a human” design with no way to make it fucking stop.
I talked myself out investing in modulars because I know I'll never have the patience to deal with the wires when all I want is to play. Big respect for those who can do it!
reply