Emotion based tagging control would be the most helpful narrowing it down. Tags like [sarcastically] [happily] [joyfully] [fearfully]: so a subsection of adverbs.
A stretch goal is 'arbitrary tags' from [singing] [sung to the tune of {x}] [pausing for emphasis] [slowly decreasing speed for emphasis] [emphasizing the object of this sentence] [clapping] [car crash in the distance] [laser's pew pew].
But yeah: instruction/control via [tags] is the deciding feature for me, provided prompt adherence is strong enough.
Also: a thought...
Everyone is using [] for different kinds of tags in this space: which is very simple. Maybe it makes sense to differentiate kinds of tags? I.E. [tags for modifying how text is spoken] vs {tags for creating sounds not specifically speech: not modifying anything... but instead it's own 'sound/word'}
not OP but something like [<intention>] where intention might be something like anger, curiousness, etc. [long pause], [gasp], [laughter] stuff like that.
I'm reading it as: those unwilling to try both and make an honest evaluation and instead have preconceived notions and bigotry tend to make bad programmers. That preferences are fine, but dogmatism should be avoided.
Building a rocket shell is probably just fine: you need to fuel yet - that you can't 3D print. probably fine...
Overall 3d printing is a lot more than ghost guns and ghost rockets. That the conversation dominates this small sub-section reeks of 'think-of-the-children' screeching that hides explicit power grabs in regulation and surveillance with the main intent seemingly to be 'enforce copywrite' (of only the big players that can afford to throw their weight around).
In order for it to be 'once': all hardware must have been, currently be, and always will be: interchangeable. As well as all OS's. That's simply not feasible.
I don't see, how is it relevant in this case. We are talking about writing an integration with an HTTP API (probably) in a high level language (TS/JS, Python, etc). We have already abstracted hardware away.
I hear and understand your point.
It is not purely a social construct.
But how much available farmland to allocate to grow food from the available farmland becomes a political issue. Pricing, distribution... same deal.
And considering our (humanity's) food production outmatches our total food calorie/nutrition requirements... any argument using food as an example for scarcity indicates that you may be working with incorrect, or outdated information.
And Is "money" a social construct, or is there 'natural' money, some platonic ideal from which all other instantiations of money arise? I'm betting on the former.
What else is involved? Despite the inane ramblings of the parent comment, scarcity isn't actually a factor. Allocation occurs because of scarcity. Without scarcity, there is no such thing as allocation. It is the reason for why resource allocation exists entirely a social construct.
While food is not scarce in total, logistics are (at some limit) physics bound. Other resources are currently in higher demand than their current supply: silver for example.
> Other resources are currently in higher demand than their current supply: silver for example.
That, of course, is why we created resource allocation as a social construct. Obviously you fundamentally cannot have allocation without scarcity.
But it doesn't answer the question. If resource allocation is not entirely a social construct, are you imagining that resources are also allocated by some kind of natural force? Given the scarcity of silver, maybe the universe decides that you get some and I don't? And if you try to give me yours, contrary to the fabric of the universe, you will be struck down by a bolt of lightning before you can give it to me? What is the "what else" here?
This nuance you vaguely refer to but don't say anything about is certainly intriguing. I am looking forward to you completing that chain of thought.
Most of the surface of the earth is covered with water...
What if we cover the ice caps, and cover parts of the ocean instead of messing with grow cycles of plants on land...
No reduction in solar power, no artificial lights to grow plants. What effects might that have on ocean life? (below a certain depth - probably nothing, so surface ocean life is what we need to look at).
Just my two cents... we got plenty of surface area we can cover and potentially not affect much at all for day to day for animals, plants, and humans.
Meh to this misanthropic disregard for other's experience. If you need external alignment to prevent you being evil your internal alignment is f'ed. Considering morality an arbitrary boundary is a major red flag for antisocial behaviors.
Structured interactions lead to better results, chaotic actions lead to chaos. Ethics/morality is part of that structure that lets us achieve more together than individually.
if you think living in that structure is enfeebling: I highly question what you desire to do that results in that feeling.
reading through readme.md
"License
This code, apart from the source in core/third-party, is licensed under the MIT License, see LICENSE in this repository.
The English-language models are also released under the MIT License. Models for other languages are released under the Moonshine Community License, which is a non-commercial license.
The code in core/third-party is licensed according to the terms of the open source projects it originates from, with details in a LICENSE file in each subfolder."
Either in the form of the api via pitch/speed/volume controls, for more deterministic controls.
Or in expressive tags such as [coughs], [urgently], or [laughs in melodic ascending and descending arpeggiated gibberish babbles].
the 25MB model is amazingly good for being 25MB. How does it handle expressive tags?