paddirn @ paddirn @lemmy.world

Posts

16

Comments

2,318

Joined

2 yr. ago

I think AI art is comparable to photography. Photographers do a lot of work behind the scenes to get everything set up, the equipment, lighting, angles, lenses, etc, But at the end of the day, the only action they're taking to capture the art is they press a button, it's not nearly the same amount of work that a painter or a musician puts into their art. So I think the idea of "capturing" art is still a valid thing. Sometimes a photographer can capture an award-winning masterpiece with a spur-of-the-moment photo on some shitty disposable camera. Maybe it took them 1000 bad photos to get that one photo, but they still just captured it from somewhere else, they didn't create the work.

Similarly with AI, a person may have to work with the AI software to setup and craft the prompt that will eventually generate the art, then there may be dozens of iterations of that and fine-tuning to get the result they're imagining, and even after that there may be some photoshopping involved to get it to where they want it. They're capturing artwork from a source that may not be their own creation, just the same as photographers. I think AI art is just as legitimate as other forms of art, it's just open to a wider range of people that can participate because many of the physical hurdles (equipment, space, time, lighting, etc) are not as much of an issue.

Maybe we should have given harsher punishments to the people who tried doing that the first time around?

And where was Trump at during the Vietnam war when he was supposed to be called up for duty...?

Honestly, I think Trump should own that one and just come out and say, "I thought it was an unjust war and I didn't want to participate in it," but that undercuts the attack they're trying to make against Walz, which is already a pretty weak argument as it is. Plus, it makes Trump look like a coward (amongst Republicans).

<cough>

<cough>

<cough>

“You know what? I’m going to start aborting even HARDER.”

Isn’t that why they like him though?

What is this, an image made for giant ants?

Being a lawyer and working for someone like Musk must be both rewarding and embarrassing at the same time.

(Lemmy doesn't let me zoom in to your pic)

You don't vote for the candidate, you vote for the cause. The people excited to vote for Kamala Harris now were perfectly fine to let democracy die a few weeks ago, and thus far I've seen no substantive difference in her policies as compared to Biden, it's basically a continuation of the status quo. She has a better "argument" to make for abortion rights because she's a woman vs Biden being an old white guy, but he's still done more for workers than Harris can claim to have done. Maybe she'll scold Israel a bit more than Biden did, but she seems more in line with Hilary Clinton than anything. I'm ready to vote against the fascists no matter who the Democrats put up, corpse or not. Even if he had died in office, the presidency still would've gone to Harris anyways, so it shouldn't have mattered his age.

Yeah, in my mind Joe Biden was definitely the more liberal/progressive of the two (apart from his dumb unwavering support of Israel). Kamala Harris is probably more in line with Hillary Clinton and probably closer to centrist than progressive. There's just this perception that "old white guy" = more conservative, it's kind of racist tbh, but I guess it's against white people, so that's cool. As long as it keeps Trump and the white racists/fascists from the presidency, that's fine.

But I haven't seen any substantive change in policy direction to assume that isn't still the case with Harris. We've got a younger, prettier new face, but otherwise I'm assuming it's going to be all the same people in the administration, maybe Harris will go with B instead of A for some Cabinet positions, but otherwise, it's going to be all the same faces and it's going to be the same status quo that it was before. People expecting Harris to be more progressive/radical than Joe Biden and that she's going to shake up the status quo are going to be in for a rude awakening.

Sounds good on paper and Minnesotans seem to like him, I'll be curious to see if he actually moves the needle any or contributes to the race. Potentially he could provide a bump after a debate with Vance, something akin to Biden's VP debate performance against Paul Ryan after Obama seemed to flounder in his debate(s) against Romney, though I don't think he'll really sink the ticket any. Assuming he doesn't make any huge blunders, he might be like Tim Kaine in 2016 and just not do anything.

So when democracy was on the line and it was just an old, geriatric white guy, it wasn't exciting enough to vote against fascism? Don't get me wrong, if Kamala wins this and we make it out relatively unscathed, I'll be happy, but it shouldn't have taken just a slight change in aesthetics to get people out to vote. Democrat voters are so unreliable.

Half the pictures I see of him, he reminds me Jeffrey Lebowski (David Huddleston).

Just another Monday in the 2024 Presidential Election.

What a weird thing to say.

Doesn't the US have semiconductor chip sanctions in place on China, specifically because it's a national security concern? If semiconductors are that big of a deal that we need to sanction China over them... maybe they should be nationalized.

I mean, it's not like they've really used fact-checkers in any of the debates before, maybe after the debate is over, but they rarely fact-check them on the spot. I wish they'd have a running tally in front of the candidates that was updated throughout the debate with a general "truthiness" indicator. Just a dial gauge that gave an indication of how many statements the person had made vs how many were lies. It could be a way to attach a quantifiable "score" to a person's debate performance outside of just quips and one-liners.

"Deplorables" and alot of other seemingly insulting, derogatory things could be worn as a badge of honor by that group. For people who pride themselves on being conservative and the representatives of "normality", "Weird" isn't something you can easily call yourself, you're not weird, you're the normal one, it's society that's weird for being so permissive. And then just being called "weird" is hard to defend against because everyone has some weird thing about themselves, just existing as a human being is a weird experience.

Weird isn't bad, weird is just normal, it's just life, but in their eyes, weird IS bad, it's probably a part of themselves that they themselves know is wrong. I think alot of the blatant lies they tell the world aren't just for other people, part of it is for themselves too, to make the weirdness of fascism go down a bit easier, to make it seem like they're supporting it for justifiable reasons.