The thing people seem to forget in this argument is that art is more than making pretty pictures. Art is used to convey emotional messages -it's a unique act of human expression.
To create art (whether it be through image, writing, or something else) brings a cathartic sense to the artist, and if done well, it can communicate intended emotions to a viewer. Are there people carefully programming modern AI to make art that fits that concept? Maybe - I have heard people talk about that scenario, but I haven't seen any such art yet. Rather, the vast majority of modern AI images lack the nuance and emotional impact that real art carries. It's hollow, uncoordinated, and lacks the "soul" people connect to in human-made art.
I didn't reach to find that era - it was referenced from the article, even the snippet at the top of this very page:
But humanity had been free of current forms of advertising for 99.9% of its existence.
Then you provided examples that occured within the most recent .1% sliver of humanity's existence. Anything more recent than ~30,000 BCE is within that .1% time frame. Ergo, Ancient Rome doesn't count.
flowers advertising themselves to insects and birds advertising their singing abilities to each other.
This is why it's important to define terms before beginning debates. The advertising people are referencing here is the modern kind targeted at humans in order to manipulate them. To compare that to the symbiotic relationships between flowers and their pollinators, or to animals seeking a mate, (both scenarios that benefit all parties mutually) is a false equivalence.
Anyway, I tried to keep things light-hearted in that last post, to show that I'm not looking to attack anyone. I gave you credit for providing a novel viewpoint, in an effort to build conversation. But I'm getting the impression that you're not arguing in good faith. If you'd like have a real discussion, cool, I'm in. But if you're looking for an argument, I recommend you look elsewhere.
The word "new" is a relative term. Humans evolved around 300,000 BCE, and ancient Rome (founded in 753 BCE) is pretty "new" by that metric. You're not wrong that people found ways to "advertise" to each other throughout recorded history, but when it comes to prehistory (or as the article states, "99.9% of [humanity's] existence"), life was very different. There can't have been much to advertise before people developed tradable goods.
With that said, I'm intrigued by your comprehensive interpretation of "advertising." Now I'm wondering about things that would not have been written down/recorded, like things a town crier might have been incentivized to add to their announcements.
"Hear ye, hear ye! A joust is to be held tomorrow evening in the royal courtyard, in the King's honor. Sir and Lady Abbington announce the birth of their new son, to be baptized at the Lord's church this Saturday. In celebration, Mavis the Fishmonger is offering a buy-one-get-one deal on all flounder! Come on down to the market square for fantastic deals on all your seafood goods - just look for the stall with the yellow awning. Get your catch of the day at Mavis's!"
There were zero mainstream media outlets at the protest I went to (which was in a state’s capitol city.)
People in the crowd pointed it out, loudly and frequently enough that for a brief moment, one of the crowd’s chants became, “Where’s the media?” (Or something very similar; I don’t remember verbatim.)
I think we should hold our next events in front of prominent media offices. The news won’t come to us? We’ll go to the news. We have to make it impossible for them to ignore us.
Yep. I know. I think a lot of us know. It doesn’t make my burnt-out, cortisol-drenched brain any more capable of reacting.
Just add it to the pile of my stressors over there. I think there’s some space between “potential homelessness” and “loss of medical coverage,” but you might have to squeeze it in there.
If not anything else, they will stop buying Teslas because they are tired of buying new Windows.
Did autocorrect capitalize "windows," or does Windows 11 installation come with a free cybertruck now? They're both essentially spyware, so I guess the pairing works.
I just want to note that one of the key links on the NLG site, under Protest Tools > Legal Hotlines, is broken. (The "Chapter Page" link goes to a broken draft version.) If you went to that site specifically to find a local chapter's phone number to write, the correct link to that page is: https://www.nlg.org/chapters/
No, it’s not saying people living paycheck-to-paycheck won’t be affected. I think the point is - scary threat isn’t scary, because such people already feel the constant threat of poverty every day. Being regularly pumped full of cortisol over worries of simply surviving, there are no fucks left to give when additional threats are piled on.
Then once you go into your polling place to actually cast your vote, they check your name/address to see if you’ve been registered, and if you have, then you are allowed to vote.
They also check your signature and compare it to what's in your records. Over the course of my young adult years, my signature became more sloppy as I got lazier. I didn't realize it until I went to vote and the person working there scrutinized my signature because of it.
These policies work out for the business as well, especially when the store shares a plaza with a pet supply place.
People bringing their dogs to store A might see store B and want to shop there, too. If store B bans pets, that means people either have to bring their dogs home and come back (which is a pain, and people might not return at all), or leave the dogs in their car (which is dangerous or even illegal.) Smart business people don't want people leaving without shopping, and people with any sense of decency don't want dogs left in cars.
So when store B explicitly permits people to bring their pets, people can go straight there from Store A without worry. Customers are happy, dogs are happy, business people are happy, and no pets have to suffer in a locked vehicle.
The thing people seem to forget in this argument is that art is more than making pretty pictures. Art is used to convey emotional messages -it's a unique act of human expression.
To create art (whether it be through image, writing, or something else) brings a cathartic sense to the artist, and if done well, it can communicate intended emotions to a viewer. Are there people carefully programming modern AI to make art that fits that concept? Maybe - I have heard people talk about that scenario, but I haven't seen any such art yet. Rather, the vast majority of modern AI images lack the nuance and emotional impact that real art carries. It's hollow, uncoordinated, and lacks the "soul" people connect to in human-made art.