barsoap @ barsoap @lemm.ee

Posts

32

Comments

4,490

Joined

2 yr. ago

That's long since been the case, e.g. the Linux Kernel assigns its own CVE numbers, they're a CNA. Which keeps the "root" CVS database completely out of the loop short of saying "this here is your namespace and scope". Canonical is a CNA, Airbus is a CNA, both covering their own products. 453 in total.

Still important to have a fallback though because not all projects are big enough to do that kind of stuff, and you always want there to be some database you can report something against.

If China never wants to export REE again because other countries have built their own refineries sure, they can.

It shouldn't surpris too much given Mike Pondsmith's general record of clairvoyance that NetWatch is a European Corp.

And, no, "Vos videmus" totally isn't a creepy motto. Based out of London, one could almost think that it's the London CCTV system turned sentient AI.

As a connoisseur, maybe you can explain why the oversized glass is talking about itself to me.

Because the artist -- the human, not the AI, that is -- decided that it should. Maybe just with a chuckle, no deeper meaning, wouldn't be the first time that happens (much to the chagrin of the academic art world).

The toilet isn't the interesting thing, the interesting thing is how there's now authorised replicas in museums (the original is lost) signifying the discussion around art perception, not the art itself. Looking at one doesn't give you more insight than reading "and he put a urinal on a pedestal" in a textbook. It's a fucking urinal. The piece having no meaning onto itself was part of the point, it's all in the context. Yet, somehow, the replicas are authorised. A true rebel museum would forego getting an authorised one and buy a random one off the shelf, then proclaim it to be original.

You can't go into a room carrying a plucked chicken, proclaiming "behold, a human!" without there being Aristotelians around. Well you can but noone would talk about it millennia later.

AI does not have the creative capacity to make art.

I agree!

And the same applies to cameras. That doesn't mean that photographs can't be art, though.

It’s not dada. It’s too coherent to be dada, and it’s too shit to be anything else.

TBH my first instinct was trolling, especially as it's easy to overlook when you're just reading the text, not focussing on anything else. Point is when you'd hang this thing in an exhibition the audience would go all "ahh" and examine the mechanism.

The academic art world is beset nowadays with blurbs of barely intelligible critical theory to justify themselves, I find a fresh amateur artists saying "oh that's interesting, neat, let's keep it" much more interesting.

Literally nobody is saying or thinking that. What we are saying is that there is absolutely no way that OP’s prompt contained “…and make the optimist BE the glass itself…”.

So what? It's still a choice to keep this result, and not another. Artists capitalise on chance occurrence all the time.

The irony is that you’re giving OP way more benefit of the doubt in your reading of what they produced than you’ve given me,

OP is not here to defend themselves. They're also not digging themselves further into a hole.

Fine. If it's offending your senses too much to be tame surrealism, call it dada. If you think that replacing a person with an object cannot be an artistic choice, you... well, haven't seen much art.

Note that I'm not arguing for or against AI here. I'm saying that your critique of AI is slop.

I don't think citing the US supports your case. You're talking about a country where the only time everyone is on one page, is interested in the same thing, a moment of cohesion, is the ads during superbowl. American culture may technically exist but it has close to zero depth. Regional identities are deeper, largely because immigrants clustered together, one source nation here, another one there.

It's also not really comparable because much of that increase was due to immigration, often whole families, also I think you meant more like 30%, not 3%. Niger has a growth rate of 3.66, a median age of about 15. Fifteen. Half are younger, half older than that. Politically, it's a complete shitshow that makes the Trump regime look sane. There's such a thing as too much teen spirit.

And even without that it should continue to ensure visibility. So that a kid from a small village with five age peers knows that they might be the odd one out in their village, but they're not alone. A place large enough to have a parade is large enough to have a (semi-)dedicated bar, and vice versa.

but that still doesn’t mean you get to post complete nonsensical garbage where a glass of water is talking for no reason

How dare Dali paint pictures with melting clocks! If the clocks really were hot enough to melt, they would set the tree they're melting on ablaze!!!!11

I get it. Artists are afraid of their income. But with those kinds of takes, "AI bad because surrealism" I can't take you seriously as an artist so I guess nothing would be lost.

Could potentially be a compression artefact but I freely admit I'm playing devil's advocate right now. Do not go down that route we'd end up at function approximation with randomised methods and "well intelligence actually is just compression".

Not using plain RGB black and white isn't a new thing, neither is randomising. Digital artists might rather go with a uniform watercolour-like background to generate some framing instead of an actual full background but, meh. It's not a smoking gun by far.

The one argument that does make me think this is AI was someone saying "Yeah the new ChatGPT tends to use that exact colour combination and font". Could still be a human artist imitating ChatGPT but preponderance of evidence.

I can generally spot SD and SDXL generations but on the flipside I know what I'd need to do to obscure the fact that they were used. The main issue with the bulk AI generations I see floating around isn't that they're AI generated, it's that they were generated by people with not even a hint of an artistic eye. Or vision.

But that doesn't really matter in this case as this work isn't about lines on screen, those are just a mechanism to convey a joke about Excel. Could have worked in textual format, the artistry likes with the idea, not in the drawing, or imitation thereof.

Because the idea behind it is good? You're confusing art and craft. Why should anyone be interested in a urinal on a pedestal? The work is defined not by whether or not you can buy its physical representation in any random hardware store, I thought we had that one figured out.

Also there's literally zero people who would pay someone a commission to draw this piece. You're not looking at lost work you're looking at additional art. Without AI (if it is AI) it might have still existed but in stick figure form and that would be better because...? The idea has better expression as a chicken scratch? I don't think so.

Left guy has 1 arm.

Perspective.

Both guys have an arm that melds into the surface that the glass is sitting on.

Nah the arms are in front of the railing.

The “optimist” is the glass.

So what it's visually balanced. I would shy away from reading surrealist meaning into it but it's not like humans never make that kind of choice.

The plain fact of the matter is that nowadays it's often simply impossible to tell, and the people who say "they can always tell" probably never even tried to draw hands or they could distinguish twelve-fingered monstrosities from an artist breaking their pencil in frustration and keeping the resulting line because it's closer to passing than anything they ever drew before.

That's still not a graph of Japan.

More importantly, you're not looking at the derivative, that is, the growth rate:

The growth has very much peaked, the last large countries are currently undergoing demographic transition (from having many kids, few survive, over having many kids, many survive (growth spike), to hawing few kids, of which pretty much all survive), e.g. Nigeria will be done by 2100. And societal collapse because people either can't do anything but care for the elderly, or social cohesion is failing because the elderly aren't cared for, does not depend on absolute numbers, it depends on the raw growth rate, because young people from 1900 aren't going to care for the elderly in 2100. And the growth rate it depends on is the local one how many Nigerians do you think fancy caring for Chinese elderly.

Oh and those projections above are with a moderate estimation of future fertility, that is, when the average country turns out like France. Not if the average country turns out like Japan or Korea.

Also, just to make this clear: There's nothing wrong with the population shrinking again. Or growing, the earth is far from its carrying capacity if we're doing it right. The trouble is shrinking too quickly, or for that matter growing too quickly. We should pine for two kids per woman, +-0.5, thereabouts: Don't veer too far off replacement levels. And all that can be done by proper social policy, parental leave, good schools, work/life/family balance, sex ed, etc.

“fear of decline”

You're not making an argument, there. You're showing a graph that's misleading because it starts at fucking 10000 BCE. Look at a graph of Japan if you want to talk about Japan, and of the current generations not prehistory.

it’s about the productive output, and as we all know, that has risen tremendously the last few years.

Ah, yes, because having a machine that can churn out pottery like noone's business helps a lot with elderly and palliative care.

There is absolutely a limit how few kids a society can have before it collapses. Where that is is currently not particularly clear because the situation is unprecedented, but that there is a limit is crystal clear. 10 young people caring for 100 bed-ridden elderly and one kid, how long is that going to last, even if you automate everything else?

They're also complaining about "women being excluded from women's spaces by agents of the patriarchy posing as women". They're also not necessarily using "TERF" as a label. They're using typical fascist-style "words mean whatever we want them to mean in the moment" type of stuff, hiding clear-cut positions behind pretend nuance, hence why I favour clarity.

Yep if you run a seedbox you shouldn't be surprised if consumer-grade offerings don't want you on their service, they provision their capacities, whole business model, for a certain average usage.

There's a huge difference between "I downloaded that ISO because I needed it and am going to seed it 24/7 because I'm too lazy to turn off my PC in the evening" and "I grab every fresh release and mirror it".

OP you gotta pro up. You don't want a VPN you want a server or rackspace at a datacentre or IXP. If all you're seeding really is linux ISOs talking to the right people even might get you free access to overcapacity, as in free transit to wherever your location doesn't pay transit for, and whatever minute-by-minute capacity doesn't cost them anything on the upstream (those links are billed by max bandwidth used, not transfer volume, so if there's a lull in their traffic you can soak it up and all it costs is electricity).

Nah I'm demanding clarity. A clear question "Do you mean excluding TERFs or excluding women" and the answer is "I want to be inclusive". It may not be meant as such, and I'm definitely not implying that it was, but that's exactly how a TERF would evade questioning.

A clear "Fuck TERFs" would have provided plenty of clarity, and been much shorter. Also, it would have said "Fuck TERFs".