They already have their finger on the scale with this due to their algorithms. They're pushing these posts to people, not just letting people see posts from communities they have chosen to join. To me the algorithmic nature of post visibility is what muddies the water here and puts them in the place of promoter of speech vs. neutral platform for speech.
No, I don't have a proposal or solution, I'm ultimately out of my depth here. But I do think it's a little more complex than it is sometimes made out to be.
> I think Meta fully expected this feature to be used by people who are excited about their conversation with the AI and wants to share it publicly.
That's really what you think? And what they think? That people are so enamored - in droves - with their exchange with a chatbot that they're trying to share it for the world to see?
Maybe I'm the old fogey who doesn't get it, but it's just hard for me to believe that this is something many people want, or something that smart people think others earnestly want. Again, I may be the outlier here, but this just sounds crazy to me.
People share AI chats all the time on Twitter, Reddit, etc.
I don't personally think the feature makes a lot of sense in Meta AI.
However it's a lot more likely their product team genuinely thought it might do, than it is likely they intentionally wanted to give users a bad experience and risk more bad press (again, Meta would benefit nothing from people sharing by mistake).
Considering that 90% of the chats I see share are people tripping over themselves to demonstrate the AI being silly and dumb, yeah they are enamored to share with the public :p
I agree. Further, these companies show us over and over again who they are, and whether it's tobacco companies, pharma, food, or oil companies they always know - in exactly the way and at the time that makes you sick to your stomach - what they're doing and who's likely to fall for it in a way that makes. The comments in this topic are feeling a bit sophist
You completely misunderstood me. I am not incredulous that people use AI, nor am I in any way doubting how it can aid all sorts of processes.
I am incredulous that a primary use case of a genAI chatbot is sharing your chat conversation publicly. It's easy to see why people would do this for genAI images, videos, or even code; I even understand some occasional sharing of a chat exchange from time to time. But routine, regular interest, from regular people, of just sharing their text chat? I do not understand that at all.
I have a Blue Jay that began imitating a Cooper's Hawk after one started showing up in the neighborhood. In its early attempts at imitation, it was still recognized as a Blue Jay, but the Blue Jay has improved and it now comes up as a Cooper's Hawk! I watch it sing, so I know this is the Blue Jay, not the hawk.
This app changed my life. I got into hiking and outdoor spaces when I married my wife and she wanted me to join her in camping, something I never did as a kid. This iteratively got me more into natural spaces and wildlife, but only as a passing curiosity.
But then one morning while camping, I woke up to a symphony of birdsong. Many calls, but there were at least dozens of a call echoing throughout the forest of a flute-like bird with a trill at the end. I was enchanted. I had used the Merlin app previously just to ID some city birds near my house, but I remembered I had it and found that dozens of wood thrushes were singing their song to me that morning. It's my favorite sound in the world, I've got a tattoo on my arm of the spectrogram of their song, and I make it a point to camp where I expect them to sing every year.
This created a journey into a love and personal involvement in the natural world that has changed me for the better.
> Buttons don’t work often, screens are inconsistent, results get lost, and more issues.
What device are you using, out of curiosity? I use this app almost daily for months at a time across several generations of the Google Pixel, I haven't had any of these issues even one time. I'm not even sure what you mean by "we ID something, but it’s gone by the time we show it to someone". Like, it shows a match while you're recording, but the ID disappears after you've stopped the recording?
I've found the app starts hiccuping when I'm making a very long recording, but I've learned to just cut it off and start a new one after about 10 minutes.
Going to second this opinion. I use this app almost daily as well on an iPhone 15 Pro. I have zero problems with responsiveness. I have seen a small lag when I start to get to 45m-1hr recordings, but even that isn't all too bad.
The only problem I had was when I had a OnePlus phone. It would show the little circles of "I found a bird" but not actually identify anything, and as far as I know it was a OnePlus specific bug. I have a Pixel now, and it works perfectly.
When I was in Aruba there was no bird pack which covered the island, but the one for Venezuela seemed to work for most birds that I heard.
> I've found the app starts hiccuping when I'm making a very long recording, but I've learned to just cut it off and start a new one after about 10 minutes.
What phone are you using? I record ten hours a day and never get any issues whatsoever, so I'm not even sure what you mean by "hiccups".
I think in this case volume wins out in that over 90% of Portuguese speakers are Brazilian Portuguese speakers. If anything it may one day just become "Portuguese" and "European Portuguese".
At that time, we will have niche dialects "American English" and "British English". "English" will be identified with the variety spoken in India. Please kindly do the needful good sir.
The stylistic evolution of Picasso and Godard over time is undeniable, but I think it’s also worth considering that Anderson is working in a medium that isn’t just visual, but also narrative, thematic, sonic, and performative. His evolution as an artist is not truly represented by his shifts in color palettes, framing, or editing technique, but you can see it in the emotional territory he explores, the narrative structures he experiments with. While he stays within his own unique aesthetic framework, he is pushing against the boundaries within it.
Asteroid City, for example, is doing something genuinely different, not just in tone, but in structure, layering fiction and grief in a way that feels disorienting and profound. And while his style is often imitated or parodied, nobody else is actually making movies like his with that particular blend of rigor, melancholy, humor, formality, and precision. We should celebrate having a unique voice and perspective, he's a major part of the diversity of creation, he's way outside the boiled-down average the rest of the industry pushes towards.
Picasso didn't have evolution so much as total overhauls at several points. It seems much harder to do this kind of evolution/revolution in film simply because of the money involved.
As a film director with such a distinct style, which makes money, it would be pretty hard to go to your investors and say 'I want to do something totally different.' and secure enough money to make a film in the modern era. There are some directors who can self fund due to windfalls in the past. I mean thinking back on noted auteurs I can only think of a film or two that are outside of their style and most are either very early in their career when maybe they were doing a work for hire or very late in their career where they had enough gravitas to get the money to try something different that they had been sitting on for many years (David Lynch's Straight Story is a bit of an odd man out though, I'm not sure of the history of that particular film)
But for someone like picasso, he can just decide on even a whim to attempt to refine or invent another style, the market probably has some kind of pull but it seems like, to me, several orders of magnitude lower stakes.
It would be interesting to find out after some film auteurs' death that they actually had done several other films in a wildly different style under whatever the director's equivalent of a pen name is. Though keeping such a thing secret would be highly improbable (too many people involved in a modern film production).
It’s not that you’re completely wrong or anything here, but the simple counter example of other unique directors that also progressed / changed their style over time kind of disproves the idea that this is some inherent aspect of filmmaking.
And certainly I’m glad he’s making movies and I enjoy them (as I said in the initial comment.) That doesn’t mean I need to celebrate every single thing he does and refrain from film criticism.
I think your “simple counter” might be a bit reductive. Artistic evolution can take many forms, but it doesn’t have to take every form, not every distinctive filmmaker needs to reinvent every aspect of their art to demonstrate creative growth.
My point wasn’t that Anderson should be exempt from criticism, just that his growth may register differently because of the kind of storytelling he’s committed to. The evolution in his work often plays out less in surface-level aesthetics and more in structure, emotional depth, and thematic complexity. He clearly enjoys working within a consistent visual language, but that doesn’t mean he’s artistically “stuck”. Critique is always valid, and I think it’s also worth asking whether we’re tuned into the kinds of shifts that matter most in his particular creative vocabulary.
Perhaps the example of Woody Allen at the top is more apt.
The departure in style, theme, visual approach, and structural vision between early works like Sleeper or Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex and later films such as Match Point is dramatic. Then again, three decades separate those movies. Anderson still has time.
Yes, but time for what? I still resist the implication that Anderson is somehow “sitting still” artistically just because he maintains a consistent (and remarkable, and unique) aesthetic. When you engage with his work beyond the surface, there’s clear evolution in structure, tone, emotional depth, and thematic ambition. That doesn't mean everything he's done is a masterpiece, or that not liking it is somehow an invalid critique.
He may still evolve in more outwardly dramatic ways, but I think he has and continue to evolve already, just on his own terms, without compromising the visual language he clearly loves.
I get that reaction, and Anderson’s style can definitely create a sense of emotional distance for some. Throughout this thread - and I want to jump in to so many comments - you can see it.
I found Asteroid City to be one of his most emotionally raw films. Beneath the precise framing and deadpan delivery that characterizes his work, the movie is wrestling with true grief, uncertainty, and the need to keep performing your role (in life, and in a metafiction sense, in the movie). This driving need is there even and perhaps especially when you don’t "understand the script", and when you feel isolated and other-ed.
The scene with Margot Robbie is the fulcrum of the entire movie, it’s brief, but devastating, and probably the most emotionally exposed Anderson has ever gotten. I think this scene is also in part in dialogue with the audience. If you ever do revisit it, I think there’s a lot simmering under the surface worth your time. But it's not my intention to try and convince someone to enjoy a movie that doesn't click for them.
No, I don't have a proposal or solution, I'm ultimately out of my depth here. But I do think it's a little more complex than it is sometimes made out to be.
reply