https://github.com/pkg/errors provides stack traces support. This unfortunately did not get included in the Go1.13 release when error wrapping was introduced.
One thing I'd really like AI to do (and Ben Afflect touched during his talk) is that once AI is cheap enough to run at home, I'd like to feed it all David Lynch movies/TV shows, and ask it to produce a Twin Peaks season 4.
Lynch will be one of the easier things for an AI to replicate given his thing is weird for the sake of weird and being deliberately vague about it. His stuff is 90% atmosphere.
Everything he has made is impregnated with meaning. He is absolutely not weird for the sake of weird, and if you think he is, you’ve misunderstood his work.
> Everything he has made is impregnated with meaning.
Eh. He creates dreams via cinema. His work is abstract and open to interpretation, that doesn't mean it is 'impregnated' with meaning so much as you and others personally found meaning in it.
> if you think he is, you’ve misunderstood his work.
Given that no one can claim to understand his work since he refuses to answer questions on it, this is a rather meaningless claim. I can just as easily claim that if you think his work is 'impregnated' with meaning, then it is you who has misunderstood his work.
There are very clear themes and currents running through his work - fears around industrialisation and technology (electricity and machinery are recurring motifs), explorations of identity, exploitation both sexual and societal, the facade of the American dream, the cost of pursuing a creative life. I'm only scratching the surface there.
Lynch does actually talk about his work quite a bit, but he prefers to talk about his process and its connection to his mediation practice, rather than explicit meaning of his symbolism.
> There are very clear themes and currents running through his work - fears around industrialisation and technology (electricity and machinery are recurring motifs), explorations of identity, exploitation both sexual and societal, the facade of the American dream, the cost of pursuing a creative life. I'm only scratching the surface there.
I agree there are recurring themes. That doesn't conflict with anything I've claimed.
> Lynch does actually talk about his work quite a bit, but he prefers to talk about his process and its connection to his mediation practice, rather than explicit meaning of his symbolism.
Which also doesn't conflict with me saying he refuses to clarify or elaborate on meaning behind his works.
No, it doesn't. His work can have recurring themes and still be weird for the sake of weird and mostly atmosphere. Those things are not at all mutually exclusive.
> both complete nonsense.
Not really, it's more that you're likely offended in that I'm reducing so significantly a work you clearly find a lot of meaning in and enjoy discussing.
> His work can have recurring themes and still be weird for the sake of weird and mostly atmosphere
Everything "weird" in his work serves the narrative and those themes. If you had spent any time thinking critically about any of his films you would understand that, but you clearly haven't.
The AIs also disagree with you. I asked Claude "what are your thoughts on this statement: "Lynch will be one of the easier things for an AI to replicate given his thing is weird for the sake of weird and being deliberately vague about it. His stuff is 90% atmosphere."
and it responds:
"I disagree with this characterization of David Lynch's work. While his films certainly feature surreal and dreamlike atmospheres, reducing them to "weird for weird's sake" misses their intricate emotional and thematic coherence.
Lynch's work often explores deeply human experiences - trauma, desire, identity, and the dark underbelly of seemingly idyllic Americana - through a distinctive visual and narrative language that draws heavily from dreams and the subconscious mind. Films like "Mulholland Drive" and "Blue Velvet" aren't merely atmospheric exercises, but carefully constructed works where the surreal elements serve specific narrative and thematic purposes.
Take "Mulholland Drive" - its dream logic and narrative fragmentation directly reflect the protagonist's psychological state and Hollywood's destructive impact on identity. The "weird" elements aren't arbitrary but emerge organically from the story's emotional core.
I think AI would actually struggle to replicate Lynch's work precisely because it's not random weirdness - it's a complex interweaving of personal obsessions, cultural critique, and psychological insight expressed through a unique artistic vocabulary he's developed over decades. The "atmosphere" in his films isn't just surface-level strangeness but rather the manifestation of deeper themes and emotions.
> Everything "weird" in his work serves the narrative and those themes.
The problem here is you are confusing your own subjective interpretation with objective meaning and intention.
> If you had spent any time thinking critically about any of his films you would understand that, but you clearly haven't.
I've been studying and writing about film for about 20 years, lol. I've also made a few films.
Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I didn't think critically, nor does it mean I'm wrong.
> The AIs also disagree with you.
LOL! What do you think that proves? Honestly? They are just regurgitating opinions like yours, many of which are overly pretentious defensive nonsense.
> The "weird" elements aren't arbitrary but emerge organically from the story's emotional core.
He makes waking dreams.
Dreams are defined by weirdness.
So it's perfectly in line with making a dream to be weird for the sake of weird, hell, it's basically a requirement.
> I think AI would actually struggle to replicate Lynch's work precisely because it's not random weirdness
Some of the AI produced trailers are already unintentionally pretty Lynchian.
> it's a complex interweaving of personal obsessions, cultural critique, and psychological insight v
His personal obsessions are well known and recurring in his films, so easy for an AI to draw from.
His cultural critiques are superficial at best, and never the main point, but again is for an AI to draw from an imitate.
I would say there was psychological insight so much as there is psychological exploration.
> expressed through a unique artistic vocabulary he's developed over decades.
Yes, this is what I referred to as being weird for the sake of weird.
> The "atmosphere" in his films isn't just surface-level strangeness but rather the manifestation of deeper themes and emotions.
That also doesn't conflict with anything I claimed earlier.
Where we disagree is how deep his films are. You think they're something truly insightful with a lot of thought behind them, I disagree and see it as closer to a Scrotie McBoogerballs situation.
> They are just regurgitating opinions like yours, many of which are overly pretentious defensive nonsense.
Pretentious is reducing the work of one of the most highly acclaimed film makers of our time to “weird for the sake of weird” and “lol an AI could make that”. Really insightful criticism.
Pretentious is suggesting his work has no substance ("90% atmosphere"), when a poll by BBC Culture of 177 film critics from 36 countries named Mulholland Drive the best film of the 21st century.
There are plenty of directors whose works that I don’t personally appreciate but I would never be so arrogant to suggest an AI could reproduce them.
> Pretentious is reducing the work of one of the most highly acclaimed film makers of our time to “weird for the sake of weird” and “lol an AI could make that”.
No, that isn't pretentious, that's just an opinion you personally find offensive.
Nothing you've said in an attempt to refute what I've said contradicts anything I've said. You just don't like the way I've summed it up.
> Really insightful criticism.
I mean, I've been elaborating, although it's been hard to have a fun discussion since in my opinion you've been combative from the start.
> Pretentious is suggesting his work has no substance, when a poll by BBC Culture of 177 film critics from 36 countries named Mulholland Drive the best film of the 21st century.
I didn't say his films had no substance, first of all, no where can you quote me saying anything like that. I do find them fairly superficial with the surrealism doing a lot of the heavy lifting with peopel interpreting a lot and giving more credit than is due, but that's hardly the same thing now, is it?
Besides, I bet a lot of films on that list don't have a lot of substance and are just fun, and there's nothing wrong with that.
> There are plenty of directors whose works that I don’t personally appreciate but I would never be so arrogant to suggest an AI could reproduce them.
Because you find the notion offensive, fine. I think AI could replicate even directors I do like and find to have a lot of depth, though. I think ultimately everything can be reduced to data and patterns and heuristics and an AI will be able to mimic styles frighteningly well.
> How many Palme D’ors and academy awards do you have.
If I said even 1, you realize that shouldn't affect the merit of any argument I've made, right?
