You are what you eat.

(Everyone should read the deposition)

Article in the tweet: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elon-musk-didnt-want-his-latest-deposition-released-here-it-is_n_66133d2ce4b0d81853f9a766
 
The full deposition text: https://www.scribd.com/document/721193667/Elon-Musk-Deposed-In-Lawsuit-For-Falsely-Linking-Jewish-Man-To-Neo-Nazi-Brawl?irgwc=1&irpid=10078&sharedid=huffpost.com

How long until rich weirdos start dropping 6 figures for a Cybertruck | Dragon Lore?

Ross’ campaign video can be found here, and you should visit https://www.stopkillinggames.com, especially if you live outside the United States.

Yeah I obviously can’t really argue with that. I just prefer to say they aren’t real art because it’s more impactful I guess.

While I don’t think delineating “real art” from mere images is as simple as coming up with the right math formula, I do think that we can get somewhere by looking at how many decisions a human is making versus the decisions they aren’t making. For the sake of discussion, let’s ignore all the commentary pieces specifically about AI, or for which the lack of any guiding intention is a part of the artistic message, let’s just talk about plain old art. The thing that’s important to me is that every single piece of an image is a choice - every line, every brush stroke, every pixel. Take, for example, Starry Night - the reason that painting looks the way it does, looks so meaningful, isn’t just because van Gogh painted a really pretty town, it’s not just about the complete image, but the way that each individual stroke swirls and loops into each other. There were thousands of mutually reinforcing decisions that the artist made there, each movement of the brush was chosen deliberately to reinforce the piece’s intended viewing experience. The comparison to current technology is almost comically unfavorable, and while I don’t think images created with AI assistance are categorically incapable of being art, the vast majority of this material is indisputably tripe, and I would argue the use of AI in the process does something to taint the final product in many cases.

Art is about making decisions. The guy I cited as a real artist literally didn’t do anything - mailing in an empty canvas was his decision, so clearly the issue for me isn’t the amount of effort involved. The reason I don’t like AI isn’t just because it’s making things “too easy” - I hate it because it represents the minimum possible level of decision-making, the offloading of all creative responsibility to an algorithm. If tomorrow there was some magic brain-scan technology that produced an image directly from your thoughts, put the thing that you were visualizing mentally right on the screen the exact way you were thinking it, that would still be art, in my mind, while GenAI would not be. Once the human involved isn’t the one making the calls, you’re not an artist any more, you’re just an editor.

This so colossally misunderstands every fucking point I made, nothing you said here is correct. Just to enumerate:

• Yeah, it is fucking theft if it happens under capitalism. The whole first paragraph was getting present day conditions out of the way before I indulged in hypotheticals. Pretending like it’s “wrong” to try and hold ownership over your own work is just a total non-sequitir if we’re discussing present day capitalist conditions, for reasons I should hope are completely obvious to any Hexbear native.
• I’m using the industry-accepted term that everyone already knows and uses, I’m not going to weigh down my writing with a bunch of air quotes. My whole fucking point with this is that it’s not intelligent.
• It’s still wrong if you as an individual make your own model instead of using the corporate AI. If you’re using the same training sets full of internet art to churn out AI art, or a pre-trained model which makes use of those, I’m still going to look down on you. I know we’re all pro-piracy here, and I am too, but it’s different when you do it to normal people.
• It sounds like you’re being deliberately obtuse here. The whole reason why AI sucks at art is that it represents the deliberate lack of choice, the absence of human intervention. The only reason you should be asking AI to make something for you is if you genuinely don’t give enough of a shit to shape that part of your work yourself. Like, sure, if you didn’t want to do a bunch of sand and dirt textures for your video game, go ahead I guess, nobody’s out there pouring their soul out by deciding the exact arrangement of rocks on the floor, but for anything else it just feels counterproductive. The vast majority of my friends are digital artists, I certainly have no issue with computers, it just sounds like you’re trying to avoid engaging with my points. The only way to make AI art into real art is to add the humanity back into it, and I don’t see many artists doing that sort of thing. Most so-called “AI artists” I’ve seen just retry until they get an image they like, take the one they liked most, feed it back in with some stuff they wanna change highlighted purple, maybe photoshop out the shitty hands if they’re really going the distance, and then they’re done. I get that the definition of art is subjective and all, but it just isn’t enough to clear the bar for me when the AI is making like 90% of the decisions and doing 95% of the work, and most people are not putting in that level of effort to begin with.

We’ve had aggressively anti-human, profit motivated art for a while now already. What else is new?

At least before now, there was always some human as part of the creative process. Someone could find a way to take their boring, conformist TV show or movie or whatever and at least try to push it at least a little in the direction of being truer to their own personal experiences or more meaningful in at least little ways. Even with the meddling suits, at least something could be done. The idea of AI art is to cut out all those pesky “creatives” and let the business guys finally decide for themselves exactly what they want, and that just sounds bleak.

That’s not what I’m talking about at all. My post is about why AI art doesn’t make sense even in an ideal world. If we lived in a communist Utopia, damn straight I wouldn’t have people manually doing the kinda data entry shit I talked about in my post if it could be helped, that shit sucks! It’s soul draining. OCR is literally just reading text in a photo and then typing out that text exactly as you see it, letter for letter, so yeah, I’m pretty happy to see that getting done by a machine. The only possible justification of making humans do this work is to give people jobs, and giving people jobs should not be the ultimate aim of the human race I think.

If you want to see stripped down Linux, boy have I got good news for you! That’s pretty much exactly what they did back then. It was a lot slower than this, and still pretty pointless. See the previous episodes of that series, they’re pretty good.

N/A. If I’m searching for news with a search engine, then it’s because I already have an article in mind, and usually it’s no challenge finding those no matter which search engine I use. For reference, I usually use DuckDuckGo. For news I haven’t already seen, I don’t search for it but instead get essentially referred by social media.

They added Command and Conquer Zero Hour which I’m quite pleased about. I doubt they’ll bring the servers back up but you can still play through 3rd party services like GameRanger.

Yup, I remember the orc who gets all excited about you buying loot.

Idk, first thing to come to mind for me was that Batman game that ran like ass on everyone’s computers. It wasn’t Arkham Asylum, but it was in the same series.

Honestly it’s for the best. They were shit at making real games anyways.

Warrior shot the food

FOR REAL, Carnevil goes so unbelievably hard. It’s very late 90’s/early 2000’s, but not in a way that ages it? More like a time capsule of the period.

Definitely a solid pick, though for some of the younger peeps I can totally understand having a stronger impression of later, higher-key titles.