daniskarma @ daniskarma @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

3

Comments

1,281

Joined

1 yr. ago

There's a male loneliness epidemic. And everyone who denies, mock it or victim blame on it is a terrible human being. IMHO people who suffer is not to make fun of. Empathy must be the basis for any moral system.

We can discuss the causes and solutions to it all day long. But sadly is such a politicized theme that agenda will come before any rational analysis. And that just saddens me. Because lots of people out there needs help, needs society to be better, and others just decide to bully them.

Linux Kernel. Blender. And the other 5 are still undiscovered.

Ublock is truly one of the 8 technological Wonders of the world.

Your dog bites someone and it becomes a big YOU problem.

These are public forums. Anyone can look what's going on here.

This is not a private space.

Finding nice places to just be. In the city, in nature, where ever but magical places.

The art is already there, but I just find it and let myself be surrounded by it for a while.

Using transportation is not actual movement. Because movement is only made by humans.

It's interesting to see that the dog situation is getting out of control in other places. I thought it was only my country where people have been becoming crazier and crazier about dogs.

Just curious and for a good laugh.

Can you be more specific in why do you think that a stem major would need to also study humanities? Do you think studying humanities make you a superior being? A better human? Do you think the study of humanities is what gives people morals and people that had not study humanities are all sinners that would go to hell? I've heard it all.

But I'm curious to hear one more. What way do you think truth about nature can be approached that it is not the scientific method?

I know that some people approach truth by dogma "this is true because I (or someone I like) say so" but I must never agree on that.

I can have all opinions about art that I want, same can you. As long as they are internally consistent probably both will be true. I think "art is what make people feel they are perceiving art" is better than "art is something that is made by someone who a subculture of the western world gives the rank of artist and that it was not made by a technology based on neural networks generation text-to-image as it was presented in the year 2021". But both are still opinions, if you want something more solid you need the scientific method and experimentation.

Do you need to feel a love connection with every artist? If not that response is not really relevant isn't?

It is literally the same. If I put it side by side you will not be able to distinguish them. If you cannot distinguish between two things they are the same.

If you were a future archeologist and found those two scripts. Your job as an archeologist is to catalogue the arts and crafts of past civilizations. How would you able to take the script written by the monkey and thrown it into the trash while taking the Shakespeare script and put it into a museum, when the two of them are exactly the same, and you have no evidence on who wrote it?

If you need to know that something was made by an human to be considered art then you may have issues when you see a piece of art without the ability to know it's contexts. For me that's an inconsistency. Something being art or not cannot depend on the knowledge on who or what did it.

Again all this is subjective. If we want an objective truth we need to do some science. Thus an experiment. We could try to define art by the physiological responses that individuals have perceiving certain things, those which share the same physiological response can be considered art. Or even if we want to add the axiom that art NEEDs to be made by humans, we could look and measure the physiological responses of individuals making different things, and catalogue those with the same physiological response as art makers, or artist and the products of those actions art. It would be interesting to do these experiments and add traditional and AI art into the mix, don't you think?

That we disagree.

And I know that my definition of art is not common. But art is not a scientific term. Is the most subjective matter in the world, so I feel free to give my own interpretation which is as valid as any other.

To me art is more intrinsic to the object than to the way it was created. Something being art is defined, by me, in the eye who looks and not in the hand who made it. Art is made by the viewer in some way, not by whatever created the thing that's being perceived. It's a way to look at what art it that it's truly ego shatering for artists (which are not wildly known for having on average small egos). But I like it. And I can really argue for that:

Imagine infinite monkeys with typewriters, they will eventually write Hamlet, exactly as Shakespeare wrote it, letter by letter. That version of Hamlet is not art, but Shakespeare's version is? Even if they are identical, and will produce the exact same feelings in the audience?

They are different but they share characteristics.

I brought it up because some guy said that art made without direct human input and knowledge of the end result is not art. And while different in many other things both AI art and generative art share that characteristic.

Imagine the next example, some people may want to say that pixel art is not real art because it does not allow for complex detailing. The. i may ask if they think that watercolor is also "not art" because it also doesn't allow for great detailing .

I've been into generative art since before generative AI was a thing. And for the record I do like generative art much more than I like AI art. I don't actually even specially like AI art as a form of artistic expression. But the fact that I don't like an art style or more specifically a way of doing art is just my particular taste. Generative art have great differences with AI art. As generative algorithms are hand made by the artist, while in AI art the algorithms are made as a generic tool and artists change the initial inputs but don't really change the algorithm that much, specially on a deeper level. Also AI art is "based" on other art, while generative art is it's own thing, is not "pre-trained".

But it's an interesting point of discussion, as it's also computer made with great randomisation, and once the algorithm is made an almost infinite works can be made with little effort without an human "opera".

Being an artist is nothing special. As I have been defending since forever, everyone and everything can be an artist. Even the wind and the rain can be artists in the sense that they can create art. What's difficult in this life is being a GOOD artist. That, very few are.

I'm not into identity politics, sorry. Can't say I'am surprised anti-AI people having an overlap with indentity-politics.

Holding a pencil over a piece of paper don't make you a master of graphite on canvas.

So no, you would not know. Same as you have show me a vast lack of knowledge in art-related themes.

Once again I must repeat that you don't even knew what the concept of generative art, as the conceptual art that started getting famous on the 1960s, is.

How are you even able to talk about these topics without such basic previous knowledge?

You have the right to have opinions, but you must admit that opinions from people who know are more valuable that opinions from people who does not know. I have argued here with people with very based and knowledge-funded opinions against AI art. I would recommend to read those to get an oposition to my points.

Same as you don't know what generative art is. You don't know how AI art is made.

And sorry but I don't have time right know to educate you, specially knowing that you will refuse to learn.

But, on the least, the refusal to accept knowledge saddens me. Dogma thinking is clearly winning our society.

And please, just please, don't give yourself vibes of "knowing the grasp of art" when you clearly don't know much about art. Once again you didn't know what generative art was, and you didn't even bother to make a quick search to find out. You just read generative and thought it was "AI" because you probably never cared about art at all. You are just against something that they have told you that you have to be against.

Typical, talking all that much about art and don't know shit about art.

Here, for your knowledge.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_art

Generative art exist since the XVIII century, much earlier than you have even been alive. And boomed with computer era in the 60s. And have never been specially controversial (not more controversial that any other contemporary art style at least).

And not, it's not AI art. It is a different art style that people that like to fill their mouths """defending"" art don't even know.

That's what you get for following the dogma without using your brain. Radical ignorance. People that "don't know and don't want to know" no wonder that political situation is how it is with so many people rejecting knowledge and just following religion or religion-like dogmas.

I am very proficient with the terminal. But there are many use cases when I want a OS that does not need the terminal at all. For instances media dedicated pcs.

I have a pc that I only use from the couch, for playing games a viewing media, and using the terminal from my remote size keyboard is a bore, I would prefer a 100% gui solution for that usage.

That seems a convoluted disticntion.

When I see these pieces in museums I've seen the piece not the algorithm. I should call the artists and museum curators and tell them they are doing it wrong.

I suppose with digital art the art is the brushes and the log of movements, not the final .png

The intent for the artists is to create the final images, the thing that the viewer enjoys is the final images. I think it's easy to asume than the final images are art. Even if you also want to consider the code itself a piece of art, that's totally ok.