Generated "art" does not rule.
I'm not saying it's doomed! I literally said that it's cool and useful. It's a revolutionary technology in many respects, but not for everything. It cannot replace the things computers have always been good at, but business people don't seem to realize that. They assume that it can fix anything, not understanding that it will only make certain things worse. The trade-off is counterproductive for tasks where you need consistent indexing.
For instance, Google's search AI turns primary sources into secondary or tertiary sources by trying to cut corners. I have zero trust in anything it tries to tell me, while all the problems it had before AI have continued to worsen. They could've used machine learning to better understand search queries, or diversify results to compensate for vagueness in language, or to fucking combat SEO, but they instead clog up the results with even more bullshit! It's a war against curiosity at this point! 😫
He always seemed like a theatre kid, so it's not really surprising.
Marketing American products with American culture? It's not that bad all things considered. Enjoying this country's natural beauty on a Harley is a genuine vibe that exists here. American motorcycle culture isn't just a Hollywood creation, but a real thing.
It is still marketing, but it probably is true. I wouldn't doubt that a German dude could've genuinely experienced what he saw in movies and found a bunch of cool foods along the way. There are plenty of cool restaurants on the road, and when you're traveling long distances, finding cool places to eat is a big part of the experience. He probably enjoyed simple staples like maple syrup, which is delicious.
All arguments about definitions are about what words should mean to best serve us. All ideas work this way, especially scientific ideas. They're all just tools, not objective or stable forms that we discover. The line between scientifically validated understandings and pseudoscience isn't sacred, but constantly in flux. This isn't a fault of science, but its greatest strength. We only make progress by testing limits and attempting to falsify what we assume to be true.
Using science to exclude other kin from gender identity overestimates our knowledge. I don't personally think it's just a part of gender identity, but related to some other aspect of identity. At the same time, science is barely starting to understand gender, and currently knows almost nothing about nonbinary identities.
There is no scientific explanation for drag, so anything we come up with is total conjecture. As a result, we should just accept our ignorance for now and move on. Doing otherwise is denying the limits to our knowledge.
The constructed simulation we live in gets constantly updated based on real world stimuli, but we often overwrite that stimuli with expectations. So long as it helps us get what we want, our perception doesn't need to be accurate. We sometimes can't see reality until it smacks us in the face; forcing us to accept it or die.
It's painful to face unfortunate realities, so we often refuse perceive them. This is not an unnecessary constraint, but a humbling truth. The only way we could ever avoid this is by becoming an omniscient god with infinite processing power.
This is where I'm coming from. Generative AI is pretty cool and useful, but it has severe limitations that most people don't comprehend. Machine learning can automate countless time consuming tasks. This is especially true in the entertainment industry, where it's just another tool for production to use.
Businesses fail to understand is that it cannot perform deductive tasks without necessarily making errors. It can only give probable outputs, not outputs that must be correct based on the input. It goes against the very assumptions we make about computer logic, as it doesn't work on deductive reasoning.
Generative AI works by emulating biological intelligence, taking principles of neuroscience to solve problems quickly and efficiently. However, this gives AI similar weaknesses to our own minds, imagining things and baking in bias. It can never give the accurate summaries Google hopes it can, as it will only ever tell us what it thinks we want to hear. They keep misusing it in ways that either waste everyone's time, or do serious harm.
He's a miser, not a genius
NSFW
Shark rule
Jump
Only cause God's a lil Bitch
NSFW
Shark rule
Jump
Pet play? Kinky!
When the Foundation becomes run by the anomalies.
AI plagiarism wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for intellectual copyright and capitalism. Ironically, the status quo of AI art being public domain is absolutely based, as the fruits of our stolen labor belong to us. The communists and anarchists should totally make nonprofit AI art that nobody is allowed to own. Reclaiming AI would be awesome!
Unfortunately, tech bros want to enslave all artists along with the rest of the workers, so they'll rewrite copyright law to turn AI into their exclusive property. It'll be an exception with no justification besides "greed=good"
I still don't follow why you're calling it an aspect of sexual preference rather than identity. It seems like you don't really know where our understanding of the world comes from, which is important for contextualizing this conversation.
At a fundamental, neurological level, we can never really exist in objective reality. The world is nearly infinitely complex and impossible for any mechanical process to fully grasp, so all biological thinking machines need to simplify the world to have any understanding of it. This is a fairly post modernist perspective, but not one that says objective reality doesn't exist. Rather, I'm saying that we cannot experience the outside world based on our current understanding of neuroscience.
We have tracked how external stimuli are not only recorded into finite chunks, but further simplified multiple times as the signal travels downstream. It's a more efficient and lossy compression algorithm than anything we see outside of AI, which themselves copy what our brains already do.
All this results in a troubling conclusion about science and philosophy: it is all constructed, and it always will be. Bisexuality is a category we came up with; a form to simulate external reality in our finite brains. This is true for everything, no matter how objective we think it is. Even if we had a final Grand Unified Theory of physics, it would only be an imitation made of the untouchable rules of reality.
That is what queer theory teaches us about all attempts at understanding. The question of other kin isn't about which group we put it into, but about why we need to put them there in the first place. How does seeing it as part of gender identities or sexual identities help us understand it? How does that understanding help us live better lives or be better to each other?
I don't care for this drag character, nor do I think we should waste time worrying about such people. If they act like a-holes, it says little about their identity. No identity can make up for being an inconsiderate douche-canoe, and shitty behavior can come from anyone.
I'm sad that one user has caused so much trouble for so many people on here. I don't get the current situation at all, as it's small potatoes compared to the myriad of transphobes and tankies from other instances. I don't often block users, but I don't see how this issue isn't just tied to a single one who would be better off blocked.
I don't get how wider political discussions get roped into personal problems. If a person was a really nice "dragonfucker," I don't know if we'd be having this conversation. It's fine to dislike a person without seeing them as immoral or a political enemy.
I'll be sad to see you go, especially over this 😞
Awwww! :3
Only if that worm used to be a shy trans girl 🪱
"I'd vore you"
Sorry chasers, I'm only 13.77% dommy mommy. I'm a subby puppy girl or bratty princess most of the time („ಡωಡ„)
I play it for the communism!
My main gripe is that humans don't have much meat on them. It works in a pinch, but the effort needed to eat so far outside of our normal pallette isn't worth it.
That said, I would be in favor of letting nature decompose our bodies more. I hate having to waste so much effort on disposing of bodies, especially once I die. I want my body to get torn apart by animals, not buried with holy rites. Mummification is the only burial practice that seems kinda cool. Cremation seems unnecessary, especially if I can get eaten by something instead. Just take what's useful, chop me up a bit, and throw me in the compost!
IP, like every part of capitalism, has been totally turned against the artists it claimed to protect. If they want it to only be a chain that binds us, we need to break it. They had their chance to make it work for workers, and they squashed it. If we can't buy into the system, we have every reason to oppose it.
On a large scale, this will come in the form of "crime," not revolutionary action. With no social contract binding anyone voluntarily, people will do what they must to serve their own interests. Any criminal activity that weakens the system more than the people must be supported whole heartedly. Smuggling and theft from the wealthy; true Robin Hood marks; are worthy of support. Vengeance from those scarred by the system is more justice than state justice. Revolution isn't what the fat cats need to fear.