It depends on what you are trying to get out of a novel. If you merely require repetitions on a theme in a comfortable format, Lester Dent style 'crank it out' writing has been dominant in the marketplace for >100 years already (https://myweb.uiowa.edu/jwolcott/Doc/pulp_plot.htm).
Can an AI novel add something new to the conversation of literature? That's less clear to me because it is so hard to get any model I work with to truly stand by its convictions.
I've been using Youtube to re-discover a lot of fun movies from the 80s-00s that I never saw when I was a kid. It's quite nice to tune in and out while working.
> They are not suggesting new, very interesting melodies. They are finding you the tweaked versions of the songs you already like and, even on your first listen you can predict the melody that’s to come
This seems like the complaint of somebody who hasn't been using spotify very long. After a decade plus, I feel like my algorithm is a rich compost pile of all of my previous phases of music. Spotify is excellent at letting me broaden my horizons or jump down a rabbit hole from a random starting point, like a song I hear in a public space or commercial or something sent by a friend. Maybe the OP should keep their ears open to more sources of randomness from the outside world?
I feel the opposite: my Spotify recs (after at least 8 years with an account) tend to get stuck on whatever I've been listening to recently. I've had to consistently go afield to find any new (to me) music. Even their "new releases for you" falls short of recommending me releases from artists I follow. How much less capable could it be?
Release Radar is consistently the worst feature of Spotify. It misses entire new albums from artists I listen to regularly, and seems to have a quota of songs to fill so after the first two or three it's no longer aligned with my interests. I can forgive it not being coherent since it's supposed to include multiple genres together, but I can't forgive it going way off from what I like just to hit 30 songs.
Huh, I don't even have that section on my Spotify. I have a "New music you need to hear this week" at the very bottom (none of it is anything I need to hear this week), but it's just generic "new music in X genre" playlists.
This is my experience as well... I have a very broad music taste but with some main themes. I find Spotify's algorithm (11 years of Premium) to regularly surface things I'll like, whether new music from artists I already know, music correlating strongly with known tastes, or every once in a while something that seems out of distribution but I like it anyway!
It probably helps that the strongest areas of my taste are relatively small or niche genres, like Scottish trad and Celtic (folk) rock. In those niches, similar-but-different is often distinctively different in actual experience. Sure, there's covers of the same song from time to time, but I actually do like enough of those not to be bothered, if they bring something new.
Economists like Paul Krugman are using a SURVEY of people asking them what they spent (for a NON FIXED basket of goods).
Let's say that you used to eat 10 units of grains ($1 each) and 5 units of beef ($5 each), for total spending of $35.
Let's now say that prices doubled (grains $2, beef $10).
You can't afford $70, so you adjust your consumption patterns and replace 2 units of beef with 2 units of grain (cutting your beef consumption in half).
We have now replicated the graph that Krugman so proudly showed off.
> Economists like Paul Krugman are using a SURVEY of people asking them what they spent (for a NON FIXED basket of goods).
1. What survey are you talking about? It's certainly not mentioned in the OP, and I don't have a twitter account so I can't see the prior tweets.
2. It feels incredibly suspect to paint "economists" as using this particular methodology, when "inflation" is usually synonymous with "CPI", and that uses a fixed basket. In fact your linked tweet even admits this.
I would venture to guess that people are largely poor because they've been thoroughly exploited by the rich, and short-term greed is allowed to take precedence over higher-utility outcomes.
That's a popular Marxist narrative, and conveniently puts on the blame on "them", but I don't think it's true. Plus, pretty much everyone on this site are "the rich" by world standards, so look to yourself, oppressor-(wo)man!
My observation is that a lot of people are poor because they lack the ability to make money, generally because they don't have any skills. I lived in a city that was pretty poor, and there was no interest in education and no real thought that one could better oneself by learning skills. One girl I met was "homeschooled", which meant that she was unsupervised and did whatever she wanted, which was not learn anything. She was borrowing from her future to do nothing now. When all you have to offer is unskilled labor, you are going to be poor.
I also knew a couple who were also quite poor, but they had a small shop (which they lived in), and were augmenting it through drop shipping businesses advertised on TikTok. The shop was not successful, but between the two of them, their other businesses were doing okay. These people were poor, but they did not have the poverty mindset of the others.
Regardless of our understanding of them, antitrust laws are powerless without enforcement. It seems the only entities with standing to prevent these actions by massive corporations are other massive corporations.
Great! I just installed a front and rear camera system in my new car since my last one was totaled by a hit and run driver in a busy intersection. The (off duty) police officer who saw the whole thing told me it would be useless to call the authorities without a license plate number. Fool me once.
Can an AI novel add something new to the conversation of literature? That's less clear to me because it is so hard to get any model I work with to truly stand by its convictions.