What’s interesting is this feature (Spotify DJ) really excels when you give it qualitative input “workout music that pairs well with a sunrise” - and can deliver stronger results that hunting for a playlists
I’m fairly certain Spotify’s core meta data adheres to the US music industry largely set / reinforby Nielsen.
I’m curious why the author would want to happen with the feature if not move from 1 artist to another
For chart reporting? Am unfamiliar with the Nielsen standard, but given the state of musical metadata more broadly it's probably not very sophisticated.
Would expect any provider like Spotify to just export the reports Nielsen requires, not design their core systems around it.
I wouldnt have inagined AI overviews would impact tech news site heavily.
I can say personally I have gone from being a daily reader of sites like The Verge to virtually never visiting, the experience and quality of the content fell off a cliff and I try to seek out more meaningful content. Maybe this is a story more about people having alternatives and the rise of Substack and seeking out quality over dross?
Yep same. The reason I don't visit most of them anymore has nothing to do with AI and everything to do with ads and quality of content (which I suppose may have to do with AI) i.e. enshitification
Yes and no. Claude code helped with boilerplate and debugging, however every city's permit system is different enough to warrant hands-on work - figuring out the API endpoints, understanding the schema, pagination quirks, etc... AI was extremely useful for the repetitive parts (parsing HTML and mapping fields), but the hard part is comprehending each city's unique data and normalizing it into something consistent. That's still a human problem.
To play devils advocate - why should a government supplier and private company (Anthropic) and 1 man there - get to decide what an organization with elected officials can and can’t do?
Dario has no idea of threats facing the US and where national security needs to go.
Dario has personal views on weapons and surveillance- that’s fine but national defense tactics by their nature is something many people are uncomfortable with.
Claude is Anthropic's property which they rent to the government. Is there any other place where rental agreements don't come with clauses on how the property can and can't be used?
> why should a government supplier and private company (Anthropic) and 1 man there - get to decide what an organization with elected officials can and can’t do?
Misunderstanding of what is happening. They have terms and conditions with their private property that anyone can choose to accept or decline. The DoD wants to them turn around and say these terms for a private company's contract around licensing of their private property are so egregious that the government and all government contract holders should be forced out of using any products by that company
I agree in part with the hype train thesis, but what I hear is that open claw is better at solving problems and people love the interaction pattern - that may not be any new invention but it is what will mean we go from having Claude Desktop use mainly by engineers to something used by many. This will not be the final iteration of it, but it seems to be the direction of this to come
These glasses are doing incredibly well from a sales perspective. Social norms have shifted, user generated content is huge, being a video influencer is a real job - so seeing people filming is more accepted than 12 yea ago.
It doesn’t mean I like it but these are not going away. I do think they lack a killer app, but there’s a part there with conversational AI that can act on your behalf
Fundamentally how is this any different from what Google or Meta or Comcast or AT&T do? Comcast knows everything that goes to the TV and sells that data.
At&T sells your browsing data…
Those are services you pay for monthly.
Sure the method is different but it’s the same goal. Company x learns your interests so It can monetize you by selling to advertisers
AT&T sounds like the same thing, Google sounds different because they theoretically claim to not sell your data, and instead sell ads, and Google can show you an ad you want to see because Google knows you so well. It doesn’t precisely sell you to advertisers in the same way.
Anyways, the whole thing sucks for consumer privacy and needs to be outlawed. The problem is that companies come up with unique, tricky ways of exploiting you, and people can never fully understand it without a lot of effort. Someone might be ok using Google and seeing contextual ads, but wouldn’t be ok if they knew Google was saving a screenshot of their browser every second and uploading and reselling it. The first can feel innocuous, the second feels evil.
