Oh wow....this will incredibly useful for the influx of recent home improvement videos I've been watching lately.
Now I can just print that video
91–100 of 123 posts
Re: Now I can just print that video
#92Definitely would use this. Instructional video instead of step-by-step text is a personal pet peeve. I know it's a lot easier to just record a video to show something like "how to replace the battery on a cordless vacuum" or "removing a sink basin nut" but it's often such a painful experience for consumption (watch a moment, pause, scrub back and watch again, pause, continue, pause, all with potentially gloved hands…
Another big annoyance is websites with recipes that do any of the following indcredibly bad UX patterns: - Big white page not showing any text or images until the entire page and its assets are downloaded, which means if you accidentally click something and go back you have to wait another several seconds for everything to load again - Pop up GDPR popup while hands are covered in flour and eggs - Pop up "would you li…
Thankfully reader view defeats most of this, though it has it's drawbacks, but the majority of what you need is readily available via this method.
Re: Now I can just print that video
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So he's using the same bit of friction that this article is trying to solve, to fill his rice bowl. You spelled out exactly what the attention economy is about. Friction . The money is made on friction. Waste - of time, of cognitive effort, of emotions good and bad. I feel sorry for this guy, but at the same time, I wish people recognized that attention economy isn't about some nebulous attention you have too much…
I get it, but most content -- that you and I find helpful in so many different cases -- exists because it can be monetized. And, to your point, friction-based monetization is one of the more effective ways to monetize your content. If you can't monetize your content, what's the point in creating it? Creating a lot of this content takes time, and therefore many people won't create it if it's not worth their time. If t…
>exists because it can be monetized
This in itself is a huge problem. The internet used to be a beacon of hope for information sharing, now it's all behind paywalls...to the point of ad-nauseam.
I understand not everything should be "free", but it's nearly impossible to access anything without the need for an account, pay to access it, get bombarded with adverts, reminded to "like & subscribe"....it's shit.
Re: Now I can just print that video
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So he's using the same bit of friction that this article is trying to solve, to fill his rice bowl. You spelled out exactly what the attention economy is about. Friction . The money is made on friction. Waste - of time, of cognitive effort, of emotions good and bad. I feel sorry for this guy, but at the same time, I wish people recognized that attention economy isn't about some nebulous attention you have too much…
the guy deserves to be compensated for his efforts. I think this is a pretty pessimistic take.
This is a slippery slope because now we're entering a stage where we're commodifying hobbies to the point that it stops being fun, and starts being another product or service that needs to be paid for, whereas previously, it was shared due to passion of said hobby.
I'm seeing it in one of the oldest hobbies I still entertain, RC cars. Small shops have all but went under, everyone buys from the internet, and when you can't figure out how to repair something, you're paying a massive fee for a specialist to figure it out. Adults can deal with this begrudgingly, but this was a child focused hobby primarily, and now we're pricing them out of it.
Re: Now I can just print that video
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
I consume hundreds or thousands of creators' content that I value more than this particular channel. If I felt the duty to donate to each one, let alone subscribe , I would consume much less of it and live in a smaller world. Perhaps it is a rationalization, but I don't feel that consuming content that someone offers to me for free creates an obligation on my part, whether I love it or not.
interesting. you can't afford to compensate all of the creators whose content you consume, so none of them shall receive compensation? there is no obligation, it's just a good and kind thing to do.
I'm looking for the implication of the above that "none of them shall receive compensation" from me and not finding it.
Re: Now I can just print that video
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
interesting. you can't afford to compensate all of the creators whose content you consume, so none of them shall receive compensation? there is no obligation, it's just a good and kind thing to do.
I'm looking for the implication of the above that "none of them shall receive compensation" from me and not finding it.
fair, I did not assume positive intent
Re: Now I can just print that video
#97Re: Now I can just print that video
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could also dramatically increase quality, look at the below from the example PDF from the page: > Garlic balsamic chicken, you'll be making over and over. By sear your chicken. I resin wine. Grab yourself a nice large bowl, extra virgin and olive oil. Balsamic glaze. Tomato paste. Honey, fresh lemon juice, garlic, Oregano fresh thyme, coat my chicken with this beautiful balsamic, no balsamic, left behind. Don't yo…
It's a little confused about it though.. It's not clear in the gpt version that "balsamic glaze" is what you are making by mixing the ingredients together, and makes it sound rather like some other ingredient you are mixing in. Granted, we have to decipher that a little bit in the first one too, but its not nearly as bad.
If you feed key frames stitched together from the video through the GPT-4V vision model, the vision model can ensure that the steps align with the “story” shown in the images.
Re: Now I can just print that video
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So he's using the same bit of friction that this article is trying to solve, to fill his rice bowl. You spelled out exactly what the attention economy is about. Friction . The money is made on friction. Waste - of time, of cognitive effort, of emotions good and bad. I feel sorry for this guy, but at the same time, I wish people recognized that attention economy isn't about some nebulous attention you have too much…
I get it, but most content -- that you and I find helpful in so many different cases -- exists because it can be monetized. And, to your point, friction-based monetization is one of the more effective ways to monetize your content. If you can't monetize your content, what's the point in creating it? Creating a lot of this content takes time, and therefore many people won't create it if it's not worth their time. If t…
> I get it, but most content -- that you and I find helpful in so many different cases -- exists because it can be monetized.
That's a tragedy and it didn't use to be like this. In the past, you could use "exists to be monetized" as synonym to "garbage" and effectively filter such content[0] out of your browsing. Friction-based monetization is a giant "fuck you" to the user, so you can rightfully expect the quality and trustworthiness of content to match that attitude. The heuristic is still 100% valid, but it's increasingly hard to find anything other than content made for monetization[1].
I mean:
> If you can't monetize your content, what's the point in creating it?
The answer to that is, "you shouldn't".
> Creating a lot of this content takes time, and therefore many people won't create it if it's not worth their time.
Then those people should find a different, productive activity, and leave the "content creation" to people who are baffled at the question above, because for them, the reason is obvious - "because I can", or "for status", or "pay it forward", or "this would help others", or "the world would be a better place if people knew this thing I know". And none of that precludes asking people to pay for access.
> If the world would just start paying directly for content (e.g. via Patreon), and if that was the only monetization needed, then maybe we could remove the painful friction
No, let's not reverse the order in which things happened. Paying directly for content used to be the norm. It's nigh-impossible now, because everyone and their dog zeroed in on the perfect anti-competitive hack: free but with ads. This prevent almost all honest competition, because unless you have enough surplus to fund your creation yourself, you can't compete with free.
--
[0] - The use of the term "content" on its own implies we're dealing with facsimile without soul.
[1] - It's not that it doesn't exist - but rather, all the major platforms are, overtly or covertly, advertising platforms, so they both enable garbage peddlers and promote the garbage, because that's what pays their bills. In this way, it's not the centralization of the Internet alone that's the problem - it's centralization into platforms with structurally malicious incentives.
Re: Now I can just print that video
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was thinking the same thing. Extraction and basic formatting of information from human language is something that LLMs excel at. Especially if the result is being shown to a human so small mistakes can be tolerated.
Be mindful however that recipes and song lyrics are the two specific cases where OpenAI is explicitly telling the model not to cooperate, via the default system prompt. They really don't want you to have the bot regurgitate existing text in these two categories, and that includes a recipe you added into the context window yourself. I don't know if the extent of their exception here is limited to system prompt only (s…
First time I’m hearing about this for recipes, what’s the source?