Data visualization inspiration thanks to DALL-E: how Rothko, Basquiat, Picasso, and Monet would create an academic chart.
A few more sources of data visualization inspiration: Bar charts as stained glass in an old cathedral. As a page from the Voynich Manuscript. As ancient stone monoliths on a grassy plain. Made of great columns of fire in the sky at the end of the world. cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/10…
Bar charts made out of cake. In the style of Klimpt. As a Persian rug. Out of writhing tentacles.
Bar charts in the style of the a 1950s comic book, by Leonardo da Vinci, made of Jello, on a knight's shield
Scientific diagrams created by Vincent van Gogh, in the style of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, made of smoke and fire, haunted by ghosts.
Bar charts in the style of Magritte, a burning post-apocalyptic city, a Byzantine mosaic, an 80s punk album cover.
Bar charts made of books. Bones. Charcuterie. Tiny fuzzy monsters.
Bar chart by Lisa Frank, in a book of dread prophecy, traced by the masts of tall ships in a Turner painting, outlined by tornadoes.
Bar chart as cave painting, as Brutalist architecture, drawn by Studio Ghibli, in a frame of a Wes Anderson movie.
Bar chart as drawn by Dali, in the style of DALL-E (I asked it to create a bar chart in the style of AI), composed of (creepy) dollies, made out of dal.
Bar charts in the style of Keith Haring. As a traditional Chinese landscape. Carved into the rock of an alien planet. As a Hieronymus Bosch painting.
Bar charts as a Cézanne still life. As a scene in a Michael Bay movie. As a couture dress. Out of art deco furniture. (All of these are done in Midjourney, which I used for the first time yesterday!)
Since people keeping asking for these, here are all the images I posted (plus some leftovers), maximum resolution, under creative commons attribution license. Enjoy! drive.google.com/drive/folders/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Voice is one of the most useful ways to interact with AI to do work but it seems to have been semi-abandoned for serious use outside of the “chat with a friend” case.
All of the voice modes only access weak models with low latency, making them zippy & fun but kind of useless.
If you don’t think of voice models as a fun chat, but rather as a way of working, it suggests that pauses are fine, even preferred (don’t talk with me unless you have something to say). And alternative UXs beyond “talk with your AI about the weather” become possible to explore.
Also I want to turn off the breathing, giggling, and disfluencies. Anthropomorphism can be helpful in many cases but it gets to be too much, especially for serious discussions. The tone is off and it feels ingratiating and slows things down.
I think my “otters on a plane using WiFi” may be a saturated benchmark now that nano banana pro can do this.
Prompt: Scientists who are otters are using a white board to explain ethan mollicks otter on a plane using WiFi test of AI (you must search for this) and demonstrating it has been passed with a wall full of photos of otters on planes using laptops
Since there are so many AI announcements, my advice is to focus on those expanding what folks can do with AI (& especially tools that democratize who can use AI) rather than every single UX improvement
Skills, connectors & agents with file access/CLIs are especially interesting.
Next up: pay attention to expansions in artifacts/vibe coding for non-coders, specialized AI tools for industries outside of coding (see Claude Finance) and systems that take software people use every day and radically transform how they work using AI (Excel agents, for example)
Also interesting to watch ambitious new applications that are AI-native. What Google is doing with NotebookLM, for example, is basically creating an entirely new interface for working with information that is a pretty strong break with older ways of handling large amounts of info
I don’t have much to add to the bubble discussion, but the “this time is different” argument is, in part, based on the sincere belief of many at the AI labs that there is a race to superintelligence & the winner gets,.. everything.
You don’t have to believe it (or think this is a good idea), but many of the AI insiders really do. Their public statements are not much different than their private ones.
Without considering that zero sum dimension, a lot of what is happening in the space makes less sense.
This is not the only way folks justify the large spend on AI buildout (and whether there is a bubble seems very far from obvious), but it is a dimension that does not show up in as many economic analyses as it should.
Very soon, the blocker to using AI to accelerate science is not going to be the ability of AI, but rather the systems of science itself, as creaky as they are.
The scientific process is already breaking under a flood of human-created knowledge. How do we incorporate AI usefully?
Science isn't just a thing that happens. We can have novel discoveries flowing from AI-human collaboration every day (and soon, AI-led science), and we really have not built the system to absorb those results and translate them into streams of inquiry and translations to practice
A lot of people are worried about a flood of trivial but true findings, but we should be just as concerned about how to handle a flood of interesting and potentially true findings. The selection & canonization process in science has been collapsing already, with no good solution
Some new theoretical economics papers looking at the implications of AGI.
These two papers argue that a true AGI-level AI (equivalent to a human genius), if achieved, would eventually displace most human labor and reduce the economic value of remaining human work to near-zero.