- 0 Posts
- 133 Comments
I think I’m piggy-backing off of something you’re not talking about, I’m not sure. But I wanted to say it anyway.
The phrase “did you think anybody here wants to hear about instagram” isn’t just a personal reaction,
People say things like this when what they mean is “I don’t want to hear about Instagram” all the time. If you’re listening for it, you can pick language like this out near constantly. It’s really, really dishonest, and it drives me crazy.
A person won’t say “I didn’t like this movie,” but they will say “this movie is bad” because they know the second one gets taken more seriously. They effortlessly move a subjective opinion into the objective, and this is where, like, 90% of arguments about media stem from.
People are constantly embellishing their opinions to seem more important than they are, and I really wish they would stop treating the public consensus like a game of King of the Hill.
That’s not to say that speaking for a crowd is always a bad thing, but god do people abuse it.
Okay, well if you’re going to be like that, I’ll talk to someone else:
An artist’s job is to pull together research, resources, history, knowledge, opinions, their own fluency in the language of the medium they’re using, and a bit of inspiration, and turn that into something interesting, or cool, or flashy, or thought provoking.
AI generation, even for the concept phase, skips 90% of that effort.
You can’t fabricate something with AI and then re-make it by hand later because these are two halves of the same process. By the time the hands are involved, there is very little left for them to do.
You don’t see the use in an artist viewing an approximation of the finished product
I don’t because that’s not what artists do.
Artists are not people who bring nearly finished projects over the finish line. And if your finished project does not look anything like your nearly-finished AI assets, what are you actually using them for?
How is it Mean Girls-esque if they think they’re being nice?
Anyway, no, I’ve seen your other comments, you clearly have a bone to pick here. Honestly, it’s funny that you’re the one telling me about being the rudeness police.
I’m sure Katana is old enough to handle whatever problem may be here on their own.
Meaning, we can already cross the uncanny valley, and this AI filter will not help with any of it.
This reminds me a lot of the Smile EQ comparison that speaker sellers would make to impress average, 45-year-old men in Best Buy.
In the Grace picture alone, it removes the distant fog, it destroys the mood, it overrides the art style, it over-brightens the scene, it adds light sources that don’t exist, it removes the warm light spilling out of the shop window, it makes the color palette colder, it hyper-contrasts everything—there is no world in which I would call this an improvement.
Right, it’s all 1984.
The entire point of art, of human sociality, is to lend your heart out, and be lent one’s heart in turn.
You describing this technology as ‘fixing’ old works you can’t stand anymore is the same as rejecting the heart being held out in front of you.
If you want to use the old works to create something new, that’s perfectly fine, but they do not need fixing. You can’t see this because you do not have love.
Final Fantasy IX won’t look like 3D blobs hovering over static, pre-rendered scenes.
God, this is such an unbelievably anti-art thing to say.
I’m excited to replay so many games without feeling let down by my nostalgia filter
You. are. mentally. ill.
I’m not just saying that to be mean. I’ve been reading a lot of Umineko recently, and there’s such a beautiful way of putting this: old games look perfectly fine, “but without ‘love’ it can’t be ‘seen’.” You have no love. This is why you are blind.
Healthcare workers were prioritized for vaccination, locking them into the narrative early. Once you’ve taken the shot and pushed it on patients, your identity – professional judgment, ethics, self-image as a healer – hinges on its safety. The cost of admitting error becomes psychologically prohibitive.
What the fuck did you link.
[edit] So, if you follow links to Joshua Stylman’s substack, you can find this:
Maybe it’s my algorithm, but the content was flooded with an unusual amount of vitriol directed at Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s nomination as HHS Secretary. […] talking heads across networks uniformly labeling him a “conspiracy theorist” and “danger to public health,” never once addressing his actual positions.
Honestly, I don’t even know why I’m wasting my time on this. It’s just funny, I guess.
I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking, but the main difficulty here is that using AI, even just for temp assets, is a virtue signal that demonstrates bad virtues. That’s why it’s socially repulsive. It’s like inviting someone into your home and watching them stick their fingers in the soup.
It’s not that using an AI asset for exactly 5 minutes only before swapping it out, and never even committing it to your git history—it’s not that this disqualifies your work from being meaningful in other ways, it’s just that being weak on this front, morally, makes you seem like kind of a dipshit. It’s a failure to reject the siren’s song that leads sailors to their death, you know?
And for what it’s worth, I love seeing passionate work. As a proper art enjoyer, a professional liker of things, cubes and cylinders do nothing to dissuade me.
I have zero special interest in AI
C’mon, man. Don’t lie.
There are finite ways to solve problems with code, how can anyone prove a piece of code is actually written by them …
You and I are going to end up reinventing the US patent system, and while cool, I just do not have time for it. I have way too many autumn leaves to blow into my neighbor’s yard.
You don’t even know why I said that. Why do I have to suffer people who are incapable of reconstructing someone else’s argument?
The ML approach to protein folding is a different system, used in different ways, by different people. Your insistance on conflating a data analysis technique with a robot that will pretend to be your girlfriend is utterly bizarre. It’s so oblivious and unaware, I don’t even know what to do with it. It’s like you want people to dislike protein folding. I don’t understand why your camp insists on treating these like they’re the same thing.
Except I do, actually: it’s the card says moops. A very Republican tactic, if I’m being honest.
I’m going to be a little less mean considering some things I’ve seen you say elsewhere.
What I’m talking about here is attribution. Colleges have their own system, I don’t believe that it’s law, for identifying and dealing with plagiarism, and that’s because where an idea came from is very important to academia. Something that trips a lot of people up because they tend to think of plagiarism as thought-stealing from other people: you can be found to have plagiarized your own work from years prior. You have to call out where your information comes from.
Software, even though chunks of code are copywrightable, as a culture, does not care about this nearly as much. Are you stealing if you borrow something from stack overflow? In a way, yeah, kinda. But nobody cares. Lawyers do care about the selected licenses on libraries and github pages, though.
But this is where talking exclusively about copywright gets in the way: if a coworker of mine borrowed a solution from a free-as-in-libre github repository, that would be fine. And the law wouldn’t care. But if they then said, “I wrote this,” maybe because they’re anxious about proving to their manager that they’re worth keeping around, I would think that was really fucking weird of them.
Attribution is not strictly a legal concept. It may or may not be possible to get my coworker there in legal trouble, but that’s really besides the point, I think they’re being anti-social. The dishonesty about where those ideas came from make me nervous about continuing to associate with them at all.
… but it turns out later I had read a solution to this problem somewhere and inadvertently copied it.
Plagiarism covers this.
If I use a Jetbrains provided built in template …
Are you claiming you wrote the template? I think plagiarism might cover that.
What if I just accept it as is, still my code?
Absolutely not.
If I copy a solution verbatim from Stack Overflow or a book,
If you… saw a solution somewhere. And then you copied it letter for letter. And then you told people, “this is mine, I wrote this,” … is that plagiarism?
This is for sure a difficult one, super hard, but I will give you a chance to think about it. It’s good to consider all the possibilities.
I once used suno a bunch to “make something” of some funny lyrics I had written (a gag for some friends of mine, not really important), and the process of getting anything useful out of it was absolutely miserable. I would never use this for any serious artistic effort. None of it felt like it was mine, either.
When I say that it was like watching a microwave, I’m being completely serious. If my career became just endlessly hitting that slot machine button for another go, I might just punch my ticket.
Mate, you were asked if code that was written for you was in fact your code and you’re talking about copyright. You’re off in the woods. You are so deep in the poisonous bog, I don’t think it’s possible to pull you out.
I think you get regular briefings at work on how to be, like, a business narcissist. Much like Tommy Tallarico, the inventor of music in video games.
Ooh, that’s sounds cool. Yeah, I’ll look at the third one then.