Sublime Text used to be my go-to editor when I didn't need a full fledged IDE. A rare gem in an arena of slow mammoths. I've since switched over to Lite XL, which is FOSS, just as fast (if not faster), and the plugins cover nearly all my niche use cases.
While I respect the effort that goes into creating quality software and am not averse to spending money, I'd rather not live in a world where the best softwares are closed source.
More than just words. I've found LLMs immensely helpful for searching through the latent space or essence of quotes/books/movies/memes. I can ask things like "whats that book/movie set in X where Y happens" or "whats that quote by a P which goes something like Q" in my own paraphrased way and with a little prodding, expect the answer. You'd have no luck with traditional search engines unless someone has previously asked a similar question.
Even assuming a perfectly efficient government with good intentions, you should not expect to benefit from more than a fraction of your tax money if you are above median income.
And this would achieve what goal exactly? Even more search result sanitizing? Google scrubbing everything even remotely controversial from their search results because it might "harm" someone? No thank you, I value access to information. The last thing we need is more of "As a search engine I cannot...".
Are audio/video recordings I take with my phone going to be useless in a decade because deepfakes are virtually indistinguishable and there is no "additional confirmation"?
That is a good question, because there are two trends at play here. On the one hand, you have ever improving ability to create deepfake images, videos or audio recordings. On the other hand, AI-based retouching of photos and videos is now pretty much standard on mobile, some of it done by default and hidden from you in software. It wouldn't surprise me if the same was case with voice too.
Point being, it'll take more than just looking at the source image/video/audio for signs of AI manipulation, because soon enough, all recordings will be AI-manipulated before even hitting persistent storage.
In other words: everything will be deepfake by default, and the issue will turn into telling which deepfakes were done to lie about substantial aspects of reality pertinent to the case, and which ones were made to enhance some non-relevant qualities (aesthetics, compressibility, etc.).
Additional confirmation could simply be multiple sources reporting the same thing. Once is circumstantial, but if 10 people record something from different perspectives then it is highly likely to be real.
Lots of ways to sign photos and videos today that should make them fully verifiable in the future (assuming public/private key cryptography remains secure). For stuff that isn't signed, it's not like good old detective work can't verify in a lot of cases. Phone records, eye witnesses, additional unpublished recordings, etc.
Also being verified really only matters when it comes to "truth" as defined by law. It's not like your family won't enjoy your videos of Christmas '23.
Possibly just anecdotal evidence, but it seems like the pool of good music composers is much much smaller than the pool of good visual artists. Maybe that is an indicator of how "hard" each field is.
Think that depends heavily on what you consider to be a "composer" and what you consider to be "good" in both art and music.
Writing somewhat novel music to a formula arguably has a much lower skill bar than producing good representative art (especially if you allow sequencers as composition and disallow basic digital retouching of photos as visual art), but producing something that genuinely stands out may be harder
I agree with your sentiment but just a nitpick - tasks considered "easy" by humans aren't necessarily easy to automate and vice versa. Eg. beating a computer at recognizing trash vs beating a pocket calculator at 6734100522 * 714261898941.
I have always found questions like "when are we going to use this" repulsive. It is the mark of an individual who sees themselves as little more than a slave, forced to learn things to stay useful.
The logical conclusion of this would be a world where everyone only knows exactly what is required of them and nothing more. Answering this question would miss the whole point. What ever happened to general knowledge? Don't you want to understand a fundamental part of how the universe in which you exist works?
If you don't know calculus I consider you illiterate and unable to understand much of world you live in, just like you are illiterate if you don't know that the earth is round (and why would you need to know that, I wonder?).
I think the illiterate part is a bit harsh but I generally agree with the rest of your sentiment.
I was just recently giving your exact argument, that if in high school you learned only exactly what was needed to perform your job as an adult, you would essentially be a cog in a machine that requires the world to stay completely static for your entire life in order for you to not get screwed when your skills inevitably become obsolete.
The point of calculus (which imo is just the common path of achieving mathematical maturity) is not that you will use math in your day to day, but that you will be a more well-rounded and dynamic person mentally.
That being said, uninspired high school mathematics focused on memorization is not helpful for anyone.
While I respect the effort that goes into creating quality software and am not averse to spending money, I'd rather not live in a world where the best softwares are closed source.