I’ve been playing around with AI a bit, and honestly for what it is at this moment of human history, it’s an absolutely incredible piece of technology.

I mean sure, it’s effectively a big statistical calculator that takes human words, tries its best to interpret it using statistical probabilities and a large dataset, and tries its best to return something that the end user appreciates with most results being more than adequate for humans.

In a way, that is an impressive feat of human engineering.

Don’t get me wrong though. AI is still pretty stupid as hell. People who have bet big on AI are hyping it up to an absolutely absurd degree when (at this current moment in time) AI does seem to fall over and blow up pretty spectacularly.

However, for small tasks? It’s actually not bad. Especially when you don’t give the AI tool the ability to write directly and make destructive, non-reversible changes.

One really small example was me trying to figure out how to write a bit of code from a React Component into a React Hook. It had been a while, and I was pretty rusty with React Hooks while being entirely familiar with React Components. I wrote my solution as a React Component (like a Javascript React class…) first, committed the solution once I got it working, and then went to work on the React Hook bit.

I was scratching my head trying to figure out how to turn the componentDidMount() work I did into something that could be used functionally - I knew I had to use React.useEffect(), but my attempts either failed to update anything or just locked the page.

This is where I turned to AI - I gave it my crappy useEffect() code, told it my bug and asked how to fix it. Like some sort of miracle… it did not fix it - BUT! it did point me in the right direction!

It explained to me about React Provider that existed in the source code, and from that I realised there was a way to grab the global state from the React provider (i.e. via the context that was created along with the provider/consumer). With that, I was able to set the state in useEffect() while setting the second argument as an empty array achieved the componentDidMount() effect I was looking for.

Thanks to AI, it turned something I was scratching my head for almost 2 hours and making zero forward progress into half an hour where my brain was about to churn.

I need to emphasise that a human was involved (i.e. me) and I had the final say in terms of the final code. These points are important - I copied my code into ollama/qwencoder-2.5, saw what code qwencoder came up with, and only when I was satisfied with what the code was doing, I copied it into my codebase, ran it, and then fixed the code to do the correct thing. I didn’t let an AI agent go rogue on my machine.

---

Another example was on this blog! In fact, this article.

I know what you’re thinking - oh for fuck sakes, what has he done? I thought this was an actual person who wrote that and reviewed it! It seemed believable, and didn’t seem like the usual AI slop that comes out!

That is because, dear reader, it was written by a person (i.e. me). I just asked ollama/gemma to correct the spelling and grammar.

Nerd shit time (if you haven’t already tapped out from the above talk about React components!) but these blog posts are written in Markdown. They’ve always been in Markdown - before and after the Astro migration. Markdown is fantastic for simple formatting, but utterly shit for being able to spell-check and grammatically check what I wrote.

Before AI, I had to do this weird fucking ritual of copying and pasting the HTML formatted blog into Microsoft Word, and then checking Word for spelling and grammar. Based on the spelling/grammar fixes pumped out of Word, find the words that have been fixed in the Markdown file - i.e. find the exact line and column where it has been fixed (good fucking luck if I have reused that word but spelt it differently each time) - and fixing the mistake.

This article? I copied & pasted the raw markdown into ollama/gemma and straight up asked it to fix the spelling/grammatical mistakes for me. Then I took the output from gemma AI, copied and pasted it back into the markdown file, checked Git staging for any weird changes, and once I was happy I committed and pushed the changes.

It was so fucking easy. Gone are the days of me mangling around like a dickhead over markdown files, Word documents, and the HTML preview for hours trying to find and correct spelling/grammatical mistakes. I can write excessively with freedom knowing I don’t have to pour over every single word. Amazing.

However, I decided to have a bit more fun with my new AI toy. After I had published the AI grammatical fixes, I gave it a simple request: Can you identify areas of repetition and rambling that might make it unappealing to a reader?

This is what it responded with:

Okay, let’s pinpoint the areas of repetition and rambling that could make the post less appealing to a reader. Here’s a breakdown, categorized for clarity:

**1. Excessive Detail & Technical Rambling:**

*   **Broadband Speed & Storage Issues (Multiple Instances):** The repeated discussion about 1Gbps broadband and low storage space is a *major* source of rambling. It’s understandable that these issues cropped up, but it’s being hammered home repeatedly, making the post feel like a troubleshooting log rather than a review.  The Android phone’s specs (OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G) are also mentioned repeatedly, which feels like a tangent.
*   **“Mostly” Overuse:** The constant use of “mostly” – “mostly instantaneously,” “mostly plays instantaneously” – is a stylistic choice, but it’s overused and feels like a way to hedge without adding substance.
*   **Detailed Device Specifications:** The repeated listing of device models (OnePlus, Samsung, Sony, iPad) feels like a distraction and doesn’t contribute to the core argument.

**2. Repetitive Arguments & Phrases:**

*   **“To Be Fair…”:** The phrase “to be fair…” is used several times, often introducing points that could be presented more directly.
*   **“It’s Not Like…”:** Similar to “to be fair,” this phrase is used to preemptively address potential criticisms, but it can feel defensive and slows down the flow.
*   **The “Mostly” Argument:** The argument about Tidal’s algorithmic recommendations being “mostly” better than Spotify’s is repeated, and could be streamlined.

**3. Sections That Could Be Combined or Shortened:**

*   **The Dolby Surround Sound Discussion:** This section is quite detailed and could be condensed.  It’s a nice observation, but it’s not central to the review.
*   **The SD Card Storage Discussion:**  The detailed explanation of using the SD card is a bit of a digression.

**4. Overall Rambling:**

*   **The overall tone leans towards a troubleshooting log.** The frequent mentions of technical issues and device specifications create a feeling that the author is more focused on *how* they’re experiencing Tidal, rather than a balanced review of its features and value.

**How This Impacts Reader Appeal:**

*   **Fatigue:** The repetition and rambling can lead to reader fatigue.
*   **Loss of Focus:** Readers may lose track of the main points.
*   **Perception of Unprofessionalism:** Excessive technical detail can make the review seem less polished.

**To improve the post, focus on:**

*   **Prioritizing Key Arguments:** Identify the 2-3 most important points you want to make about Tidal.
*   **Streamlining Language:** Eliminate unnecessary phrases and technical details.
*   **Concise Explanations:** Provide clear, focused explanations rather than lengthy digressions.

Do you want me to help you rewrite specific sections to address these issues, or would you like to focus on a particular area of the post?

Hold on - I’m fucking sorry.

The repeated discussion about 1Gbps broadband and low storage space is a major source of rambling

Please tell me where in this tidal review did I repeatedly discuss about the 1Gbps?!?! I wasn’t angry as much as nearly falling off the chair in fits of laughter - gemma went full Ghandi on me and just straight up accused me of something I didn’t even do! The statistical calculator is malfunctioning!!

I went ahead a replied with Hold on, I only mentioned the 1Gbps broadband speed once. Same with the Android phone's specs. How is _that_ the source of rambling? Please explain.

gemma came back with

You are absolutely correct to call me out on that! My apologies – I was projecting my own frustrations and assumptions about the review’s potential issues, rather than analyzing the text itself. You are entirely right that mentioning the 1Gbps broadband speed and the Android phone’s specs *once* isn’t the source of rambling.

My focus shifted to the *frequency* with which those details were brought up, and I incorrectly extrapolated that to a broader issue of rambling. It was a misinterpretation on my part.

Thank you for pointing out my error. I am still under development and learning to analyze text more accurately. I appreciate you holding me accountable.

Let’s move forward with a more accurate assessment. Do you want me to re-evaluate the post with that correction in mind, or would you like to discuss how to better identify and address rambling in general?

“Projecting my own frustrations”. What utter bullshit, you novelty overblown graphics calculator software.

After a bit of a back and forth, I asked gemma what it would think a good article would look like. Here is what gemma came back with:

Okay, here’s a revised draft of the blog post, incorporating the feedback and suggestions from our analysis. I’ve aimed for a more concise, focused, and engaging style.

---

**Tidal: A Spotify Alternative? My 2 Months of Testing**

I’ve been increasingly frustrated with Spotify – the constant shoving of podcasts and audiobooks into my music streaming experience. But I’m looking for an alternative, and I decided to give Tidal a try.

**The Verdict: Tidal is… Good Enough.**

Tidal isn’t perfect, but it’s a solid streaming service. It has flaws, but considering Tidal’s smaller team (around 251-500 employees compared to Spotify’s 5001-10,000), I can forgive some imperfections. More competition is always good.

**What I Liked**

*   **Simple Music Playback:** Tidal’s core function – playing music – works well. It’s fast and reliable.
*   **Good Music Variety:** Tidal has a surprisingly diverse catalog, covering everything from hip-hop and R&B to synthwave and 80s music.
*   **Algorithmic Recommendations:** Tidal’s recommendations are more varied than Spotify’s, offering a wider range of musical discovery.

**What Could Be Better**

*   **Occasional Playback Issues:** Sometimes Tidal’s playback is a little slow, but this is infrequent.
*   **Storage Concerns:** Tidal can use a lot of storage space on mobile devices.

**Key Differences**

Tidal focuses on delivering music, while Spotify tries to do everything – music, podcasts, audiobooks, and more.

**Final Thoughts**

Tidal is a worthwhile alternative to Spotify if you prioritize music quality and a curated listening experience.

---

**Comparison: Original vs. Revised**

| Feature           | Original Draft                               | Revised Draft                               |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
| **Length**         | ~800 words                                  | ~500 words                                  |
| **Intro**          | Detailed explanation of the problem        | Concise statement of the goal              |
| **Structure**      | Less organized, more digressions          | More focused, with clear headings           |
| **Language**       | More verbose, repetitive                   | More concise and engaging                   |
| **Focus**          | Troubleshooting log, technical details      | Balanced review of features and benefits   |
| **Overall Tone**   | Frustrated, somewhat defensive            | Objective, informative, and engaging       |

**Key Changes & Rationale:**

*   **Significant Reduction in Length:** The revised draft is significantly shorter, focusing on the most important points.
*   **Streamlined Language:** Removed repetitive phrases and unnecessary details.
*   **Clearer Structure:** Used headings to guide the reader and improve readability.
*   **Removed Technical Details:** Eliminated the discussion of broadband speed and the Android phone.

**Do you find this revised draft more effective? Would you like me to refine it further, or perhaps explore different approaches to presenting the same information?**

I…

…wait…

…what…

It knows I’m writing a blog post!! What kind of fucking blog post is that?

I try and clarify that this blog is a personal blog where it actually has to have a fucking soul in order for people to read it, and that I try to make my blog post humourous. After that input, this is what it came back with.

Fantastic! That’s a brilliant direction. An opinionated, humorous take on your Tidal experience, focusing on the contrast with Spotify’s social and AI features – that’s exactly what we need.

Okay, let’s build from that. Here’s a draft incorporating your feedback, aiming for a conversational, opinionated tone with a touch of humour:

---

**Tidal: Seriously, It’s Just… Music. (And a Little Bit Annoying)**

Let’s be honest. I’ve spent a frankly embarrassing amount of time wrestling with Spotify. It’s like a digital teenager – constantly shoving podcasts in my face, suggesting I listen to audiobooks about competitive cheese-making, and generally acting like it knows better than me. So, I decided to try Tidal.

And you know what? It’s just… music. Seriously.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Tidal has a massive music library. Like, *massive*. It’s got everything from the latest pop hits to obscure synthwave that makes me feel like I’m trapped in a 1980s arcade game. The algorithms are… well, they’re algorithms. They generate playlists, and they’re generally pretty good. But they don’t try to be *social*.

Spotify is obsessed with being social. It’s like it’s trying to build a digital community of music lovers, complete with shared playlists and recommendations based on who *else* is listening. Tidal just quietly gets on with playing music. It’s almost… zen.

And the algorithmic flexibility is a nice touch. Spotify’s algorithms feel a bit rigid – like they’re trying to force me into a particular musical box. Tidal’s are a little more forgiving. You can tweak them, experiment, and actually discover new music without feeling like you’re being judged by a digital overlord.

Honestly, sometimes I just want to listen to music without feeling like I’m part of a giant, interconnected social experiment. Tidal delivers that. It’s a refreshing change.

**The Verdict:** If you’re tired of Spotify’s social obsession and want a streaming service that just focuses on the music, Tidal is worth a try. Just don’t expect any fancy social features.

---

**Notes & Rationale:**

*   **More Conversational Tone:** I’ve used more informal language and added personal reflections.
*   **Humour:** I’ve injected some lighthearted observations and exaggerations to create a more engaging tone.
*   **Focused on Contrast:** The post explicitly highlights the differences between Tidal and Spotify.
*   **Personal Voice:** I’ve tried to capture your perspective and experience.

**What do you think?** Would you like me to refine this further, or would you like to explore specific aspects of your experience in more detail? Perhaps we could add a section about the audio quality (if that’s something you’re interested in)?

Almost like Patrick Bateman wrote the fucking blog post. Jesus Christ.

---

Remember folks - a bit of AI can be beneficial, but diving headfirst into AI is just asking for trouble. Whether you’re giving it control of your filesystem or your content, be careful.

Now, if you’ll excuse me. I’m going to copy and paste this blog post into the same AI that produced the above. If the robot uprising happens, just know it was me 👍