You know that thing our collective parents do when they want to win an argument so they just start attacking you for random things you did 6 years ago? That’s exactly what this person is doing.

The person above you, I mean.

Uh. I’m gonna guess no. Is there an anime lady with robots?

God, this image is cool. Very NaissancE, if you’ve ever played that.

instead of actually marching on Washington or organizing an actual strike that could do harm to businesses.

Lead the charge, dude.

Tesla is not a luxury brand by any stretch of the imagination.

Certainly not while they’re falling apart mid-highway.

I think people should trade the cars in because they’re a hazard to their health.

At best you’re wasting energy.

“My companies make great products that people love and I’ve never physically hurt anyone,” Musk posted. “So why the hate and violence against me?”

I wonder if having an unpopular car is bad for your bottom line.

It builds negative public sentiment.

If you’d rather bomb his house or something, you’re free to do so.

but did ANYONE believe he was capable of doing the things he’s doing now, then?

Yes.

Musk has been fomenting the right since he bought Twitter. I assume you just don’t keep up with his antics.

Also, union busting is bad enough. We don’t actually need to wait for him to start seig heiling to drop him.

Man, what if we abolished copyright, but also banned gen AI completely. I think that would be the funniest answer.

Human beings have a soul you can appeal to?
Not every single one, but enough.

Ha ha! We got this one for free!

I don’t think I run on AMD or Intel, so uh, yes.

Me too, man, I miss the 3DS era. I need to go back and replay A Link Between Worlds, at least.

Somebody might call it stethoscope theory, but I think that’s mostly a joke. Those other quadrants you’re talking about are not really on the left, they just pretend to be because it makes them seem more appealing. I mean, even the nazis pretended to be socialists. They just don’t get much purchase when they’re honest about what they want to do to poor people.

The first time that I tried chatting in a game, the original Modern Warfare 2, I was shaking like a damn washing machine trying to type out some “g Ood ShoT m An” to some other player. But I made myself do it. You don’t get anywhere without practice.

So, I would, yes. Courage is a virtue. It’s strength.

Holy shit that’s scary

I don’t want any. :(

“Why would you want to, pop culture is vapid”

A lot of these people think they’re better than you for having more s o p h i s t i c a t e d and mature, adult-like interests.

I won’t challenge them directly, I guess, because it’s the entire thread and that would be aggressive, but it is rooted in insecurity.

but I justify it by pointing to things like splatter or fluid acrylic painting.

The counter I would give here is that those are just techniques. The challenge, then, is whether the generation machine can be made to do things that are interesting and meaningful. I know it can produce spectacle, but spectacle and meaning are different concepts.

I don’t know much Pollock, but isn’t he valued largely for his process and expressionism? I’m not making this accusation of you, you do seem to actually care, but a lot of people who bring him up seem to think that his work actually is random and unintelligible—I don’t think that it is.

I will concede that the process of interacting with the generation machine to produce something is a creative one, I just don’t think it’s anywhere near what a lot of proponents claim it be.

I’ve used Suno, and my lasting impression of it is that it was fun, sometimes really funny, and overall kind of soul sucking. As a musician, there were essentially no times that I felt anything produced there was mine. It was just novelty. Some of it sounded really cool, but none of it was an expression of me or what I was really looking for.

I think that ultimately my push back is on the folks that argue that it can’t be art.

I’m not really jumping in on this discussion, but I did want to add one thing:

I can believe two things at once.

AI generated media can’t be art … because the whole purpose of a generative AI machine is to alleviate the burden of decision making. The fewer places you let something decide for you, the more “art” you can imbue into your project. Art is a communicative effort.

Artists can use AI generated media … but the points of interest, the meaning, would not (necessarily) be the decisions the machine made.

An example above, I forget if it was you or someone else, shows a pen sketch of a scene then filled in by the generator, and I think the artist there can be given credit for the perspective, the framing of the subject, the mech-suit, the sci-fi aesthetic; but I wouldn’t credit them with the tally marks on her left shoulder, or the shape details of her eyes, or the various light-up displays that dot the walls.

There’s also something to be said for choosing as opposed to creating outright, but I think we’re losing ourselves in myopic details at this point.

The bottom line is that, aside of any ethics issues, I’m not that upset about AI media that’s honest about what it is. I watch youtube channels that depend on AI for their performance art. But, AI proponents love selling this technology as a replacement for people, which is a sentiment I find… disgusting. Inhuman.

And, I find it really sad the way a person who spent the better part of their life perfecting a style and technique can be essentially shoved out of their own niche by the 10,000 style-copy images a generator can make in an afternoon. This isn’t like photography, where painters and camera-snappers can coexist in separate styles of image production: AI generators can replace both.

Sorry, I thought all that was going to be just two paragraphs.