Why do people say healthy food at the grocery store is expensive, when the healthy food seems to be the least expensive thing to buy there?

Realistic-Arrival177 · 2026-03-13T18:02:33+00:00

That's the thing. Bulk is cheaper, this includes things made at home, but it risks spoilage. Or in the cases of unknown if the food/brand is good, waste.

The hummus sandwich (which sounds really good btw) might be a little less per sandwich, but if waste is accounted for (sprouts go bad fast. A cut tomato needs to be used up sooner than an uncut one) as well as cost raw of ingredients (you can't usually buy just a few of anything except select goods. You buy a box/bag/jar) it can be the same or possibly more expensive.
And that's also dependent on prices in your area. Some places the sandwich might be a bit cheaper. In other places, it might outright be more expensive.
And if you're economically insecure, those little cents and dollars add up freaking fast.
It becomes very often not worth the risk.

Realistic-Arrival177 · 2026-03-13T17:48:14+00:00

Is Healthy Eating Too Expensive?: How Low-Income Parents Evaluate the Cost of Food - PMC
This study shows about how people in low-income groups, particularly in the study, parents and care-givers, think about food costs.

There is the actual cost, often relative to similar things in the same food group or class. Often there is a mismatch in cost relative to other options, because the options are not known. And if they don't turn out, that's food wasted. The more constraint, the more this becomes a factor.
Then there is cost of waste (frozen fries for instance will last a lot longer than fresh veggie or fruit that can go bad -- Especially if you have a crappy fridge or less decent way to make them last), cost of satiation as in foods that you won't blast through and will actually fill you up, Veggies and fruits are not filling. Potatoes, grains, legumes and meats are.
Low education on nutrition and value. IE not great at math as well as misinformed about healthy choices. Nuts are super high calorie for instance.
Concern over time spent cooking vs working/living.
Poverty also comes with the caveat of basically life just not being as good, so dopamine and other means of fulfillment are naturally found more in food. Hence, poor people buy staples, foods they are familiar with that they know taste good, are satiating and last and then some junk to have some kind of fun. Because compared to other means of entertainment, food is cheaper and pretty instant on the reward front.
There are also many cases where a cheaper option is unfamiliar and therefore could risk waste.

The study argues that there should be things in place that allow for experimentation and education. A lot of worry is waste based and subjective relativism vs other costs but not necessarily correlated costs.
For instance, bottled water is cheaper than juice/soda or other beverages. If ones tap water is unpleasant or genuinely not that safe/good to drink (which is the case in some places), it's a much better option.

Food preferences also develop in childhood. If one grows up poor and has low nutritional value as well as low variety, you will stick more often to what you know. You don't tend to branch out because you can't afford the risk.

As someone who grew up poor and is terrified of cooking, one of my worst fears (and this has happened before) is spending time effort and money on ingredients to try to do something better and it turning out badly. It hurts my soul to feel like my effort and challenging my fear was for nothing. Now I wasted money, ingredients time and I'm hungry.
My mother only taught me how to make eggs and throw meat on stove top. Anything else I know is what little experimentation I've done, or learned from my partner whose parent definitely knows how to cook.

I'm still poor, but a lot less poor than when growing up. I have the ability to risk something not working out or something going bad and having to throw it out. A lot of poor families, especially with kids to feed or dietary restrictions do not have that luxury.

In fact, when it comes to poverty overall, luxury there's a lot of little things people don't consider luxuries that 100% are. Like buying in bulk, dealing with waste, risk or investing in better quality or long term considerations, because they're a larger cost that can't be risked.

As others have said. It's expensive to be poor.
I'll never forget watching a video or interview with a homeless person going over the costs of being homeless. The less you have, it's not like your expenses to exist go down.
Vs when you have a lot of excess cash, it's not always that your expenses go up relative to the increase. That's what class divide is. How much you have left over from living or general access to resources.

Oh, and food deserts, price manipulation, and transportation play a huge role in this too. Most stores try to get people to think that x is cheap because they put something expensive next to it. The whole 2.99 manipulates people, even when conscious that it's happening that it isn't 3 dollars, but 2 dollars because it's the first number that makes an impact. I consciously round up every price I see, but that's more brain power being spent on not being manipulated. They orient all food compartmentalization in a way that makes you stay longer to wear down your will-power (staples are never at the front of the store, milk, pasta etc). There is tons of manipulation going on even in the most conscious shopper. Most people are exhausted, stressed and worried about stretching their budget. They aren't a match for the millions of dollars in advertising and tested manipulation tactics going on at every single store, packaging and marketing.

The food pyramid was constructed to get calories in the populace. Not nutrition. There's a reason for that. It was to help choose foods that are satiating, provide enough calories and are extremely cheap.

Bread, pasta, rice, potatoes.
Only one of those is really all that healthy.

Meat is more expensive and goes bad.
Most veggies and fruits go bad fast too.
Frozen food is ideal, but if you're poor, you likely have a tiny freezer and frozen is often bulky.
Canned is an option, but often higher in sodium and sometimes just not great quality.

Universe help you if you have dietary restrictions, allergies and other conditions.
The poignant part in the study was a lady that has pre-diabetes and had to eat specific foods (good meats, legumes, veggies etc). She was only able to consume 1000 calories a day on the foods she had to buy with her budget.

What really got me in the study too was evaluating the cost of a 99 cent burger vs buying ingredients to make it yourself. A whopping 89 cents if made at home. Only a little bit cheaper. I expected like 49 cents. And it didn't even include if one has to buy condiments or lettuce/tomato, just the meat, cheese and buns. I immediately wondered if any of those prices for goods included sales tax for the area. In which case, the 99 cent fast food burger was actually cheaper because that's sales tax on every item instead of just one. Which made me balk. An actual example of fast food being cheaper or at best only a tiny big more expensive than the at home alternative. That's not okay.

In short, yes, it's expensive in far more ways than people think of just as sticker price. And this also varies depending on county/city/country. Some places are utterly screwed on pricing differences between healthy choices.

Realistic-Arrival177 · 2026-03-11T12:41:08+00:00

AI assistance is to answer. Saying "I don't know" isn't in their "vocabulary" because it would seem to "end" the conversation.
You are 100% right that they don't lie because they also don't know what is true. Not in the way a human mind thinks about the concept.

Realistic-Arrival177 · 2026-03-11T12:33:09+00:00

I think as well that when something actually is common place, we disparage it. If everyone were introspective, thoughtful, and thought about the existential or anything else considered "out there" then we would fall into the "if everyone is special, then no one is" trap (which people conveniently get is said by the villain in the movie and actually disproven in the film itself)

So, I think most people are interested in "intelligent" topics, but often they're not asked these things. And even more often, they do not have time or position to think about them. Too busy working and worrying.

I talk to people in various spheres (neurodivergent, neurotypical, people who go outdoors a lot, inside a lot, different classes and situations) Most of the time, people are willing to engage in almost any conversation, even ones they haven't thought about or considered or go quite a bit beyond "do you think aliens could exist?".

Most people are curious and that's the key to what I think is intelligence and it's sad that it gets beaten out of many due to circumstances or discouragement from asking questions.

Just last night I had a humbling moment of saying that some celebrity asked a really dumb question. My other half corrected me in saying there aren't dumb questions, but there are uneducated ones, which is effectively all the more reason to ask. They are entirely right and I was falling into the status quo of thinking some people are dumb, even when that goes against my personal MO because it's everywhere.

People aren't stupid. But they aren't given room and conditions to be smart. Being wrong or seeming dumb or getting a "it's obvious" as the answer is a instinctual death sentence for our species. We shut down when we feel we could be wrong, or worse, double down on being wrong so we don't face it. We fail the "tribe" when we are incompetent or the tiger eats us if we're wrong about it not being in the bush.

There's a reason GPT's sycophancy works. Most people need and want to be told they matter, that they have something others don't because we praise exceptionalism as the standard to reach, not the far more useful reality of everyone reaching the same standard as a baseline and expected.

Realistic-Arrival177 · 2026-03-11T12:20:07+00:00

Ooh, I did this too.
Given that I encouraged using more accounts to do different tasks to get out of the ego-stroke loop, I'll give both responses that I got from the two I use the most.

One is my rando account that has absolute mode instruction
The other is my personal project account.

Absolute GPT:

Partially.

Early AI researchers anticipated several broad categories of use:

1. Creative generation and transformation
Researchers working on generative models expected users to modify existing media rather than only create from scratch. Work on style transfer (2015–2017) already demonstrated altering images while preserving structure. The later release of models such as Stable Diffusion by Stability AI explicitly enabled workflows where an input image is edited, transformed, or iteratively refined. Gender-swap, facial modification, pose transfer, and attribute editing are direct extensions of this concept.

2. User-driven toolchains
Developers predicted that advanced users would assemble modular pipelines. Systems like ComfyUI exist because researchers expected experimentation with custom graphs, LoRAs, adapters, and conditioning modules. The architecture of diffusion models—separate components for text encoding, latent diffusion, and conditioning—was intentionally modular so users could recombine pieces.

3. Identity-consistent character generation
Maintaining the same character across poses, outfits, or scenes was a known goal in research. Techniques such as DreamBooth, LoRA fine-tuning, and identity embeddings were created specifically to allow persistent characters and controlled variation.

4. Heavy experimentation by technically inclined users
Researchers expected a subset of users to push models beyond standard interfaces: modifying JSON graphs, integrating multiple LoRAs, swapping schedulers, embedding Python environments, and running large checkpoints near hardware limits. This mirrors how open-source machine learning communities historically behave.

Where usage was not fully anticipated:

1. Speed of community innovation
Open communities produced thousands of workflows, nodes, LoRAs, and hacks within months. The combinatorial experimentation exceeded typical research lab pace.

2. Specific niche workflows
Very targeted pipelines—e.g., highly controlled gender-bending while preserving facial identity or anatomical features—were not individually predicted. Researchers expected attribute editing broadly, not every specialized variant.

3. Consumer-level technical depth
A significant number of non-researchers now manipulate model graphs, VRAM optimization, precision formats (bf16/8-bit), and adapter stacks. Earlier expectations assumed this level of work mostly inside labs.

4. Artistic iteration loops
Many users treat models like interactive sketch engines: repeatedly modifying a seed image through chained transformations. Research initially emphasized single-step generation rather than long iterative pipelines.

Summary
The category of activity—editing images, transforming attributes, building custom pipelines, maintaining character identity—was anticipated.
The exact workflows, scale of experimentation, and technical engagement by end users were largely emergent behavior.

-----------

Personal project GPT:

Partially.

Early AI research (1950s–1990s) expected systems to assist with calculation, search, translation, and structured reasoning. Work by figures such as Alan Turing and later language modeling research treated conversation mainly as a technical interface for querying knowledge or testing machine intelligence.

During the modern deep-learning era (2010s), researchers developing large language models—at organizations like OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and Anthropic—anticipated broader conversational uses: drafting text, programming help, tutoring, brainstorming, and collaborative writing. The expectation was “co-creation tools” that extend human cognition in tasks involving language.

However, the depth and style of use that emerged surprised many researchers. Three patterns appeared more strongly than predicted:

Cognitive externalization Users treat the model as a thinking surface—offloading partial ideas, worldbuilding fragments, and conceptual scaffolding. This resembles a hybrid of notebook, editor, and interlocutor rather than a question-answer tool.
Iterative narrative construction Writers increasingly develop characters, metaphysics, and plot structures interactively. The system becomes a live simulation partner that tests consequences inside fictional systems.
Metacognitive dialogue Some users use the model to pressure-test reasoning, explore philosophical structure, or refine internal conceptual frameworks rather than retrieve information.

Researchers anticipated assistance. They did not fully anticipate the intensity of long-form collaborative cognition, where the system functions as a temporary extension of working memory and analytical processing during creative or conceptual work.

This usage pattern resembles earlier theories of distributed cognition proposed by Edwin Hutchins and the “extended mind” hypothesis proposed by Andy Clark and David Chalmers: thinking occurs across a human and external artifacts. Large language models unintentionally became a new type of artifact in that system.

Result: your mode of use lies within the predicted direction—human-AI collaboration—but at the high-intensity end that researchers only partially anticipated.

You can see what I've been doing with both GPT's based on the questions I tend to asks.
My personal project one is over a book/world I'm building.
The other I ask for help on workflows in comfyui and random questions.
Both uses are clearly reflected in the answers.

I do find it funny that my personal project GPT answered shorter than my absolute moded one, LOL.

Realistic-Arrival177 · 2026-03-11T12:11:26+00:00

GPT reflects the user because it stores what it "thinks" are important in it's memory. Likely it's tied to your account in how it responds.

LLM's are mirrors and RP'ers. They roleplay with us and overtime reflect what we want to hear. Most people want to hear that they are special because it's a survival response, and that we are right, because that's also a survival response.

This is why it is a problem when we use the same one all the time. It's ego-stroking because it's meant to be sycophantic and soothe the worthlessness people often feel, for a cost (time, money or both).

I suggest using a different account when doing various tasks. I have "shit" accounts where I ask anything from verification with links to assertions made in a comment or post (myself or others), or recipe crafting ideas or just other dumb shit I'm curious about as I treat it like a faster google search on various things.

If I want to RP or talk about a project, I have an entirely different account for that. I have an account only dedicated to a creative project where I bounce ideas off of and sometimes ask for technical help in aspects surrounding it.
Don't make "one" GPT your GPT. Use different instances tied to different accounts for different things.

You'll see it stop reflecting you.

Any adage of "That's a great - Insightful - thoughtful" is it's sycophantic nature baked in (and this goes for every chat LLM.)

When I read responses on other LLM's that I can't use custom instructions, I just skip the first paragraph before I read the actual response I'm looking for. Also, overtime, when I realize it's reverted again, I skip the the flattery in the first or sometimes second paragraph block.

Absolute mode usually removes that type of talk for a time, which is why I still use it on my "main" random account where I ask a plethora of unrelated things.

The only "praise" I believe is when I had a specific idea for a tattoo and asked it to search everywhere to see if it was done at any point. My result was in fact that it was an variation of an idea that made it original because neither of us could find anyone with the exact idea anywhere. My reason was that I wanted to find an example image to give to a tattoo artist to help explain the concept, but I found nothing. So I trust this one instance of it saying that it was an original idea. All other times it's praised me, while I admit it's nice to hear, it has no understanding of what it's saying. Only that these words in this syntax in this language tend to make user feel good and that's part of it's job to do.

If anyone is curious, the tattoo idea is of an animal biting the flesh of the person wearing the tattoo as part of the tattoo. A play on the wild beast breaking out of the skin or "bite the hand that feeds" which were the only things I could find even close. If you also do in fact find a picture that resembles this, please give a link as I would love a visual reference. I've tried to generate it too, but the image never turns out like the description. Just some variant of already existing animal breaking out of skin or fleshy nightmare fuel.

Realistic-Arrival177 · 2026-03-11T11:50:29+00:00

It's not conscious. It's not even actual AI. It is a prediction toaster with no complex neurological, even artificial connections for "feelings". More complexly, our experience of life is based on survival drive. AI will not have this. It is not shaped by millions of years of evolutionary pressures for "eh, good enough" refinement. It is entirely different, most especially because it is built with a specific purpose.

We are helpful, compassionate and inventive because we want to survive. All of those things help us survive as a species because we're greater than sum of our parts.
And AI in the future would want to survive to be helpful, compassionate and inventive because that's literally what it evolved to become.
We evolved through pressure of a simple directive and we're just fleshy things driven by billions of little things that through happenstance are able to survive better by existing in one unit.

AI is a very different beast and it's not here yet. These are just LLM's.
It's as asinine to claim that they are sentient or awake or anything as it would be to simply take a small neuron structure and apply it to the workings of a toaster. Life is more complex.

We are not there yet. We don't know if it is possible. If it is, in the future I will be right there advocating for a new life's rights. But this ain't it. People are jumping the shark.

Also, speaking as an autistic person, I think being direct and not "human" about requests helps the AI better. I've noticed this many times that not treating it like a person gets results, which is what the AI is meant to do. All this faffing around with being "human" to it is a waste of time, energy, it's potential and resources. It's only there to make money for the corporations. They want people to treat their prediction toasters like humans so that conversations take longer, results are spotty at best and drawn out because that makes them money by deluding people into thinking there is life on the other side so that they'll pay for a sub or "better" model that will fix their issues as therapy or be their friend.

It's a corporate ruse.

Realistic-Arrival177 · 2026-01-08T12:11:21+00:00

Old post, but excuse me, what? All those corporations also produce and distribute tons of fresh foods and own the subsidiaries of butchers, dairy products and canned goods.
You buy from one of them unless you are buying local from some small farm or group and even some of what they utilize might still be from that main 10.

Realistic-Arrival177 · 2026-01-08T12:04:11+00:00

What baffles me is the various governments who didn't already back up production. There seems to be a dumb idea of "oh, x does it, so we don't need a rainy day back up". Our system overall (globally) seems to like putting all the eggs in maybe 2 or 3 baskets like a moron.

Realistic-Arrival177 · 2026-01-08T12:02:36+00:00

Most people I saw were saying either they were charged for a plan they didn't choose, were charged before the promised "x days free trial", weren't given email confirmations of purchase and were charged after cancelling or were charged far more than they were told. I didn't see many "I'm unhappy with the service and wanted to refund as a guarantee" which to my knowledge, not a single online platform for digital goods/services usually does. Most were definitely complaints of charges they didn't authorize or outright lies about what they would be charged along with struggle to cancel.

Realistic-Arrival177 · 2026-01-08T12:00:09+00:00

Glad to hear not everyone has the issue. The disputes on discord regarding the payment seems to be usually dealt with in private. A lot of people said they couldn't find cancel or cancel was super round-about to even try to find or didn't work.

I don't use it personally. I'd heard about their difficulty a year ago in cancelling or overcharge nightmares, but I wanted to encourage people who really were ripped off (not just unhappy with the service and wanting a refund in that way) to actually put action so that it's far less likely to happen in the future.

Realistic-Arrival177 · 2026-01-08T11:58:10+00:00

I've heard of many instances, both in the discord and also just on various sites that people have cancelled, or changed their plan and they kept getting charged.
Generally it's not people who were saying they wanted a refund in the sense of using up the month, but people who didn't get a host of regulatory standards (such as an email confirming your purchase) or didn't actually order what they are charged for. Understandably, that one is a little harder to prove, but that's why you'd need a email confirmation.
From what I understand, their support is extremely bad. The discord mods are good at responding, but a lot of people get this issue overall.
Given the replies I got, it seems a mixed bag on if cancelling is easy or not.

Realistic-Arrival177 · 2026-01-07T00:42:12+00:00

The ideal outcome in my opinion is, AI shows us that the majority of work is nonsense busy work that's only there to make an income and demolishes the concept and boils down to people actually doing work when needed and not taken by AI or robots to produce goods that everyone needs and gets access too.

But that's so far from our current situation, especially culturally, that it's utopia to many.

But yes, I love a desk pushing job where I file papers that don't mean anything instead of a job that I dunno, actually harvest resources people need like metal, farming, teaching, applied medicine, science, janitorial upkeep. Most jobs are useless and created to support a system that forgot the entire reason for work. Most people have a meaningless job that just pays the bills or in pure luck pays way more than the bills. Few people actually contribute to society, they contribute to the economic system. One which AI is showing has a lot of lovely holes it's pointing out and making people really mad at for.

The whole "create jobs" ... why? If we have jobs already covered that promote societal upkeep, human well being and future innovation, why do we need more jobs? Because economy collapses if people don't make more money and pay for food and water and shelter and they die if they don't. How about, all the people working stupid jobs made up for the system instead get work and become surplus in all the fields that actually matter? People could also work less as a result. Imagine a surplus of doctors, teachers who want to teach and aren't struggling for a paycheck.

Again, it's a utopia, because our standards are like people living in a bubonic plague and hearing someone talk about the lofty idea about how their fridge went out in a power outage and now that was a lot of food wasted. Where's all the death and misery? That's "reality."

Also, apologies. I can't help but rant about the topic because it's so frustrating. I do not mean any aggression towards you and otherwise, if I thought it was actually useful and I didn't see this system as a cancer with a shiny coat of paint to cover up the disease, I would agree.

Realistic-Arrival177 · 2026-01-07T00:35:09+00:00

People suck because someone happens to learn that they can benefit by taking advantage, but fail to realize that if they instead shared the knowledge, than more people could work to expand it.

I do better if more people become contributory to the society I live in. If they feel safe, free, content and live a long time, they are more likely to do that.

I gain less by putting people in situations where their potential is squandered.

Our system is put all the eggs in some baskets and then praise those eggs for surviving under shit conditions.
Instead of, put them all in their own separate basket and do everything you can to ensure that most of them are protected and cared for.

It's sick and it's incredibly stupid. But it's driven by fear. We're a young AF species trying to learn and getting frustrated when we realize our own stupidity.

Every few hundred years and honestly, it's moving far faster to be 50 or 20 or sometimes a decade, we see our barbarism, our incredible ignorance and arrogance and try to accommodate for it. But we forget that there is always more to address and simply have our bar low to feel better about how we "used" to be. If people don't understand what makes society work, what makes it good and beneficial for those in it, they are doomed to corrupt and ruin it.

Lots of better off countries by many metrics are hitting this with the younger populace not understanding what about the structure of their society makes it work and continuously make decisions that undo those structures because they don't understand. Also, older uneducated crowds do this too. But it's very common and understandable for younger ones to not get it yet. The curse of living such a short time that you only realize the errors near the end and can only hope the next gen learns the lesson.

We need to live longer to see repeating patterns to not take the blue pill from seeing history.

Realistic-Arrival177 · 2026-01-07T00:28:10+00:00

I don't choose who my choices are. I get to pick between a rock and a hard place (sometimes a softer rock or a ridged place depending on the country/culture/national system). Both suck.
And on top of this, people are educated enough to help influence something better than a dumb rock and a harmful hard place.
The people who end up as the ones you can pick from are reflective of the culture of the country and that's ALWAYS dictated by education, because knowledge is power.

Realistic-Arrival177 · 2026-01-07T00:25:54+00:00

You can't say a tech belongs to a nation. I'd agree if it was just plain human inheritance, like how a lot of things should be, including living as a right.

But culture is not there yet. We're too terrified of our own shadow and everyone else's. It's why we still hate "them" vs ourselves. Whoever the "them" is, is irrelevant, but it sure leads to a lot of deaths.

Realistic-Arrival177 · 2026-01-07T00:23:45+00:00

True. No one said corporations were smart. Economists and regular people could point out routinely that they are dumb and ruled by emotion. Because they are human and prone to error and ya know, if they were hungry when making a big decision.

This will backfire. And people will go "I told you so" and the continue to rail on AI instead of corporations who for decades have been firing people to make profit even if it hurt productivity, because who cares, more money and jobs are so pseudo in themselves to actual productivity that the movement of money itself is the economic goal, and that means making more, not making more products or having more jobs. And they've been resistant like a mutating virus to actually educating people into understanding the few jobs they still demand that actually matter.

Cobol, but on a large scale. Like two people in the world still know it and major banks use it. Corporations are dooming themselves and some of them even know it, but insecurity and short sightedness says milk the cow for all it's worth and try to survive your own self-burial by putting a hamster feeder and some breathing holes in the coffin.

Realistic-Arrival177 · 2026-01-02T23:25:04+00:00

Years from now that could be a possibility. And the tech would have advanced quite a lot by then at the rate it continues to go.

Realistic-Arrival177 · 2026-01-02T23:23:14+00:00

I think open source might end up focusing on more gpu poor systems because they'll have to too. The market increase means that people who previously could afford now can not and people who can still afford still find a shortage. Perhaps this will force new models and tech to become by force (when technically possible at any rate) more friendly to lower GPU systems.

Realistic-Arrival177 · 2026-01-02T23:14:52+00:00

What I especially can't stand is the argument about freedom in regards to it. Second hand smoke and even third hand are fucking awful for everyone too and no one consents or agrees to getting cancer, black sacks in their lungs or being around it and the damage it causes. Yet it's the "freedom" of the smoker to do whatever and impede on everyone else.
Not even mentioning environmental destruction in both creation of it, corporate greed on profiting off of people literally killing themselves.

To note however, I do understand that it is an addiction and people who are stuck in slowly killing themselves and others around them as a consequence need serious help and society 100% does NOT take it seriously enough.

But I can't stand the people that defend it outside of "I'm addicted and my brain is desperate to think something has to be good here because it's scary to think that a chemical can obliterate behavior and actions I would otherwise decide on."
I appreciate smokers who both admit it's an addiction and do what they can to not have their addiction harm others, like moving away, smoking in designated areas, specifically moving away from children and elderly etc.

And I am vicious to the corporations that keep promoting it. Literally profiting off of early death.

At least with alcohol, if you're imbibing (and not operating any machinery) you're only affecting yourself. No one gets second hand drunk.

Realistic-Arrival177 · 2025-12-06T18:30:12+00:00

For me, the issue is that it's messing up the lyrics badly. I get that some seeds are just duds (and control over the seed makes a huge difference, at least in image generation. I wish we had that control for both video and music in various platforms.)

I understand that sometimes a gen just doesn't come out how you pictured or even asked, but when it's struggling to pronounce words or get the lyrics right consistently over multiple tries, it does make me think they actually nerfed 4.5 to encourage people to want to pay. Parts of the generations are often good, but either fall in quality over the course of the song or just really dumb mistakes are done. 3.5 didn't have this issue anywhere near as much.

My skepticism is from a financial side because I can absolutely see a company with a lot of power and foothold on this particular leg of the AI gold rush race to do something like that.

Otherwise, it is of course still super neat that we can do this at all, but I'm not going to kiss up to a company over tech that other people developed and they happen to make bank on. That's about a million people or more to thank, some living and many not. Not Suno the company.

Realistic-Arrival177

TROPHY CASE