Most of things that are impenetrable in programming aren't about... programming. They are about some actually complex field like math being applied to programming.
For example, a library that does stuff with geometry. You need to know geometry to understand the program, but the program itself will never be complicated. It's the geometry that is complicated.
In cryptography, it's not the program that is complicated, it's the field of cryptography. In AI, it's statistics.
In graphics programming, math is the most impenetrable part, not programming anything. You can be a very good programmer in the sense that you know how to architect information systems and still fail to write a shader because shader programming requires you to know what a "dot" product is and you haven't heard about that since high school.
I'd slightly disagree. Here's an example of a programming task that is incredibly complicated:
Your job is to maintain and modernize a system while delivering a constant stream of new features. Your system is several million lines of code, with some multi-thousand line classes, a rulesengine that can trigger nearly unlimited effects at any time, a persistence system that's weirder than anything any of your friends have ever worked with, and hundreds of customers delivering tens of millions in revenue who use the system in incredibly varied ways.
You can't stop to rewrite the thing, you can't just throw features out there and pray, because you'll cause regressions and your existing customers will hate you. You have to fix the thing as you're building on top of it.
But where I agree is that there's no single deep concept that unlocks it all, it's not like you'll fix it by reading a textbook about it. It's complicated, and it's going to stay complicated, no matter how long you work on it.
He mentions they used quite different methods to get to the end-result. I'd love to know how much changing the prompt impacts things: like telling claude to only draw and blend, similar to sol, etc.
There's likely not training data for this and Claude seemed to spend a lot of time blending the background.
There's a whole spectrum of things built into phone cameras these days like color correction and edge/sharpness enhancement where whether or not it's advertised as "AI" comes down to marketing.
Not that I like the idea of it, but I could see adding furniture to empty apartment photos. A furnished apartment probably sells better than an empty one.
Apartment advertisements are already doing this. With the caveat that the sense of scale (and literally everything about the apartment space tbh) can be entirely tampered with.
Oh yeah, this tiny apartment can definitely fit all this furniture. It’s not all ai generated at 2/3rds the size of any real furniture.
And photos of a furnished property give a better sense of the size of the space, and what can be done with it, than photos of empty rooms. (So long as the furnishings are sized realistically, of course.)
Generative features are all over Photoshop and other image editors. Removing a coffee cup off a table is a pretty small use of AI that nobody would really object to
Ethical edits would be stuff you couldn't notice in the inspection. The coffee cup is fine because in the inspection that won't be there and isn't a part of the property anyway. If you use AI to remove the rust and calcium on the taps that is something you can inspect and prove was modified in a misleading way.
Linux usability has come a long way in recent years. I switched full time to Linux in 2006, but I can absolutely understand those who wouldn't back then.
These days? Unless there is a specific piece of software that can't run on Linux (or under Wine), and there is no suitable replacement for it? Yeah I don't know why you would voluntarily stay on Windows (note voluntarily, if IT policy says you must that doesn't count).
All accessibility stacks sucks in some respect, but Linux's sucks most of all, and Wayland people in particular don't seem to be willing to compromise on security (which is required for accessibility to work).
It's a matter of investment. I do not see anything fundamental dealbreaker in Wayland's security model to support and enable accessibility. It probably just needs investment in engineering to find correct interfaces and ways to do it.
Touch goes in there as well. I don't know how they add a new touch keyboard to KDE and have no access to arrow keys. Making it impossible to go up in the terminal.
Not to mention AI assistants are really good at helping you solve problems on Linux.
Yeah, I know, it's not the same as "knowing" a system when you just copy paste terminal output, but if it solves a problem and converts 1 more person to Linux from W - that's a win.
Agents work well on Windows for sysadmin stuff - PowerShell gives them an easy way to interact with Registry, event log, WMI and other facilities in a structured way.
QEMU is also a good option for Windows software that won't run on Wine. Unless you explicitly pass through a peripheral, Windows won't see it and start downloading malware in the backgroud.
Same, also bought an LG TV to replace our aging 2 decade old TV. Nothing says you have to run the TV's setup. Use an external device for streaming, preferably running Linux and you have full control and no Ads or telemetry.
Most of things that are impenetrable in programming aren't about... programming. They are about some actually complex field like math being applied to programming.
For example, a library that does stuff with geometry. You need to know geometry to understand the program, but the program itself will never be complicated. It's the geometry that is complicated.
In cryptography, it's not the program that is complicated, it's the field of cryptography. In AI, it's statistics.
In graphics programming, math is the most impenetrable part, not programming anything. You can be a very good programmer in the sense that you know how to architect information systems and still fail to write a shader because shader programming requires you to know what a "dot" product is and you haven't heard about that since high school.