dreambuffer

Yes but if your cryptocurrency is supported by courts then it is no longer decentralised money and on top of that some of it is going to have to be converted to fiat at some point just to engage with the legal system if nothing else.

It wouldn't work if the realisation of fraud takes longer than the window of time you've given the owner to make a blocking transaction. Banks are superior here because they have the power and ability to correlate multiple different kinds of evidence, and then reverse the transaction even years later. They have financial statements, biological proof, social evidence, much more than just one cryptographic key.

The main reason it is a differentiator is that centralised money understands that its purpose is to be a system of social credit, so reversibility of transactions is just an acknowledgement that there is enough evidence to prove that this particular individual owns this particular sum, so it should go back to them. It is actually a much better and more honest system than the blockchain, because it doesn't treat money like a tangible resource in and of itself that can be "lost" which would be a much older and dumber way of doing things.

1. We're not talking about the same kinds of repetition. Repetition as a tool within a single artwork is not the same thing as widespread imitation across artworks.

2. Audial preferences are not the same thing as visual preferences, they're different parts of the brain.

There are styles which are timelessly bad and then there are styles which are only "bad" because they are overused. That's not the fault of the style, it was good style, that's why it became overused. The problem is us. We have a natural aversion to repetitive things, and I wouldn't call that contrarianism.

But this looks really good. Great contrast, simple and quiet, background image does not take up the whole page, the only thing really wrong is the animations. It's proof that slop can be turned into gems by someone with an eye for it.

It's fine, but if you spent hours telling it what not to do, at that point you are the one doing the designing.

I said new-age products are an exception, the bar was opened in 2005. It also kind of proves my point, once Western culture ingratiated itself into Japan the art culture got a bit worse.

You just don't know what it's like to live in a place where art and culture is truly valued. Take Japan, for a relevant example. Many things in japan are given an extra small twist to aesthetically elevate them. The food looks a little prettier, their packages are just a bit neater, their technology is cute, they put little doodles on everything, aside from new-age products or architecture everything has a little bit of personal touch and care. This is because there is some tradition of taking pride in small details and not reaching for the most obvious solution.

A society that values culture is taking the extra 3 minutes to think of or look up some Japanese iconography that would make the poster a bit more interesting than a sakura even if brainless "average" people cannot figure out how it is relevant to Japan, the hope being that all of us learn and appreciate these things a bit more.

But that is the criticism being made, that if you must supply the originality, the AI is not very intelligent.

The CIA hires "actual" artists, all the time and in great numbers. They have a creative writing division.

The logistics required to win intercontinental wars against a reasonably large and well-defended country are simply beyond human organisational capabilities and it's only getting harder as defence gets better and easier, and the world becomes more interconnected.

Israel have Monkey's Pawed themselves. They wanted Trump to win because they knew he would be malleable to start a war in Iran. But he's also Trump, which means every decision he makes comes with a big asterisk.

She's not wrong at all about her rhetorical implication (being, some information requires more than simple systems can provide), but she has concluded incorrectly that a car which does not know how to avoid a busy route is useless technology, or that the problem can only be solved by inventing life.

Well, yes, because the US government has staked the future of the country's GDP on AI. They're even divesting from science as a whole and putting it into data centers.