• 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle
  • GoodEye8@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlWho needs Skynet
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    It seems like you’re agreeing with me on the reasoning why AI art is art, you just refuse to accept AI as art. So let’s try a different way. Who says art has agemcy or intent? Clearly it’s not just “everything made by humans” because if I showed you the toilet paper I used to wipe my ass we can both agree that it’s not art. Neither is the comment I’m writing right now. So there needs to be something more that separates not art and art. The two most common ways would be the intent of the artist and the perceived intent of the viewer.

    If it’s what the artist intended the am artist can prompt AI until AI generates the image the artist intended. Since the artist intended the AI generated image to look that way the intent is inherited from the artist.

    If it’s what the viewer perceived we can reach the original question I postulated. If an image makes you feel something and you can’t know if it’s made by the artist or by AI, how do you know it’s art or not? If we take by whether you perceive intent of not then you’re attributing intent to art and it doesn’t matter how it was made. If you feel something and after the fact you find out it was AI generated image then it doesn’t invalidate what you felt.

    You can come up with whomever to validate intent or agency and I’ll show you how AI wouldn’t play a role in that decision because AI isn’t sentient. It’s a tool like a camera or a paint brush or just chalk. We give the intent by using the tools we have.


  • GoodEye8@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlWho needs Skynet
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    21 hours ago

    there’s something’s highly suspect about someone not understanding the difference between art made by a human being and some output spit out by a dumb pixel mixer. huge red flag imo.

    Translation. I can’t argue your point so I’m going to try characters assassination.

    if the original Mona Lisa were to be sold for millions of dollars, and then someone reveals that it was not the original Mona Lisa but a replica made last week by some dude… do you think the buyer would just go “eh it looks close enough”? no they would sue the fuck out of the seller and guess what, the painting would not be worth millions anymore. it’s the same painting. the value is changed. ART IS NOT A PRODUCT.

    Pretty ironic to say art is not a product and then argue that its monetary value would decrease, which can happen only if you treat art as a product.

    Imagine if instead of a physical painting Mona Lisa was a digital file and free on the internet, would people think Mona Lisa is less impressive as an art piece because anyone could own it? I think it’s artistic value wouldn’t decrease, only its value as a product would decrease because everyone could get it for free.


  • GoodEye8@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlWho needs Skynet
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    As a thought experiment let’s say an artist takes a photo of a sunset. Then the artist uses AI to generate a sunset and AI happens to generate the exact same photo. The artist then releases one of the two images with the title “this may or may not be made by AI”. Is the released image art or not?

    If you say the image isn’t art, what if it’s revealed that it’s the photo the artist took? Does is magically turn into art because it’s not made by AI? If not does it mean when people “make art” it’s not art?

    If you say the image is art, what if it’s revealed it’s made by AI? Does it magically stop being art or does it become less artistic after the fact? Where does value go?

    The way I see it is that you’re trying to gatekeep art by arbitrarily claiming AI art isn’t real art. I think since we’re the ones assigning a meaning to art, how it is created doesn’t matter. After all if you’re the artist taking the photo isn’t the original art piece just the natural occurrence of the sun setting. Nobody created it, there is no artistic intention there, it simply exists and we consider it art.


  • GoodEye8@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlCheckmate Valve
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    8 days ago

    Valve didn’t invent lootboxes. The concept has physically existed for decades, they’re called trading card packs or kinder eggs or gashapon. The latter is the inspiration for what became known as lootboxes. The first “lootbox” was actually in the Japanese version of MapleStory in 2004 and it spread in eastern markets (because pay to win is more normalized there) and in mobile games. It wasn’t until 2009 when EA added card packs to FIFA. Hard to say if they were inspired by the lootboxes from the east of the insane football trading card market in the west, or by both. It was only after a year and a half later in 2010 when Valve added loot boxes to TF2. So Valve definitely didn’t invent lootboxes, they weren’t even the first in the west to use them. You could argue that they popularized loot boxes but even there is an argument to be made that Overwatch was a much bigger cultural hit than TF2 or CSGO or EAs FIFA games and normalized lootboxes.

    I don’t mind the “Valve is bad” narrative, but at least keep your facts straight. The “strongest DRM” is also BS but others have already somewhat covered that part.





  • GoodEye8@lemm.eetoWorld News@lemmy.ml*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    22 days ago

    That’s like saying 14 lashes is more favorable than 15 lashes.

    And the denazification claim was a stupid one in the first place because how does Russia verify that Ukraine is denazified? If Ukraine kicks out of the government all the suppose nazis, is Ukraine denazified? What if they all denounce nazism. Does that count? What’s stopping Russia from putting more people in their “nazi” list? It was a vague demand and shouldn’t have been a demand in the first place.




  • You’re missing the satire. It’s a satirical anti-war movie. At face value everything in the movie makes sense, the bugs attacked and we’re fighting for our survival. But you really need to take a deeper look at the movie. How do we know the bugs attacked first? The government told us. What do we know about the government? The government promotes a militaristic class society where the only way to be a citizen is to join the military. You regularly see people who have lost limbs, how did they lose them? It’s not a peaceful society, otherwise people in military service wouldn’t lose limbs. You dig and dig and eventually you would have to question what the movie shows you. You can’t really be certain that the bugs attacked first because all you know is what the government tells you and that its in the interest of that government to have this war.

    And the movie even backdrops that the war effort is not on the side of humanity. Towards the end of the movie roughnecks get reinforced and those reinforcements are literally children. You don’t send children as reinforcements unless you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel. It’s a very clever hint that humanity is actually losing that war.


  • GoodEye8@lemm.eetoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.mlLemmy today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    Online casinos are also tech. The devops in the article literally says they set up proxies to continue operating in countries where their main domain is blocked. I know the core domain of casinos are very regulated, but I doubt the entire tech aspect of online casinos are regulated. I imagine there’s plenty of fuckery to do there.

    Also casinos will throw out people who benefit too much at the expense of the casino. The casino benefitted too much at the expense of Cloudflare and refused to share the profits, so Cloudflare did what any casino would do and kicked them out.




  • What’s your point? Socialism doesn’t mean be you have to be poor, socialism is about getting the full value of your work. If your work is so valuable it makes you a multi-millionaire then from a socialist perspective that’s completely fine. Your point makes sense only if you have no fucking clue what socialism is.




  • You’re not the only user. Other people may benefit even if you personally don’t. Getting software you don’t want is a compromise for getting an easy out the box installation that comes with what you want already pre-installed.

    If you want a more personalized approach there’s always forking a distro and customizing it so that it suits your needs (which is how Nobara came into being).


  • But I’m that case if Linux gets 1 new user and windows gets 10 then proportionally Linux usage would decrease despite the absolute number increasing.

    I would argue the absolute number is meaningless because without context that number has no value. If I tell you there are 3.4 million Linux desktop users does that number actually tell you anything? Not really. You don’t even know if it’s a lot or not because you have no frame of reference. 4% already has that frame built in and gives you an indication how Linux stacks up to other desktop OSs.


  • GoodEye8@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlPulling it off
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    From my experience Hexbear isn’t as much full of tankies as it is full of anti-west people. Depending on who you end up interacting with you might not even call them explicitly leftist. I don’t see supporting Russian invasion of Ukraine as leftist, but you can find people in Hexbear supporting just that.