ozmodiar

To me it means more that art is a window into its creator. I am more interested in exploring how and why a piece of art is being communicated, why certain details were used, how constraints were incorporated. AI is usually boring to me. By generating so much peripheral and extreme detail it removes rather than enhances expression in many cases. I think that's what people mean by missing a soul. It becomes difficult to tell what was intentional expression or a choice of the artist.

I think China has too much to gain by looking like the word's stable alternative to America. What really gets me depressed is their current trajectory towards cultural homogeneity, even internally. There seems to be a real push to calcify the Han identity. I don't know why dictators are so drawn to homogenizing their own cultures when nature itself seems to point to diversity as strength. It leaves me still kind of hoping America is somehow able to pull its head out of its ass, but they'll have to overcome their own oligarchy and entrenched structures - Trump was a symptom.

I've certainly noticed a seismic shift in how bad support and updates have gotten with some 3rd party vendors we use, and the answer they come back with is always that they're experimenting with AI. Not saying AI isn't part of the job now, but it is getting seriously over hyped and over extended.

I'm having trouble thinking of groups of people who are even able to change members outside of modern capitalism. Through most of human history we've been stuck with our group or tribe. Heck, I see people stick with groups that are toxic to them just out of the sense of connection it gives.

I am both shocked and not shocked at how many people support incel garbage reasoning here.

I think the tragic thing is that not everyone has a price, just the vast majority.

It doesn't need to be most, it just needs to be enough. I dont think it's close to a majority, but at the same time its more than enough.

"Glorified" is underselling it. Thier ability to microtarget anyone based on any trait is basically the death of democratic discourse. Now, if you're saying the data is just there for anyone to do this, you're correct, and society needs to understand that and what it means.

So we should just do whatever unethical thing we want, as long as it isn't strictly illegal/we won't get caught? Actually that does seem to be the Silicon Valley mantra. I dont know how people think this is going to play out well, particularly when the entities in question are often powerful enough to change the laws themselves.

A lot of that turned out to be pushed by Epstein and his associates. It's not hard to figure out why they would enjoy a world with lots of racism, sexism and general inequity. Its really disturbing when you consider how much power this network still has.

The US bullying other countries to follow its interests has also existed before a year ago. People are just waking up to the idea that it's going to get worse and not better.

Don't worry, China is coming out pretty far ahead so I'm sure we'll still be in a unipolar world when this is all over, and you can sleep safe at night. I imagine you didn't know.

I've been thinking of this too. I think Steam is, and I'll even throw in Mozilla, despite a few missteps. Gog seems okay, but that's much smaller. If we can expand to large tech organizations then Wikipedia has remained pretty consistent. Even Steam doesn't have a corporate structure in the traditional sense, and I couldn't think of a single publicly traded company I'd trust.

It does concern me, and it should have concerned them enough to fall on their sword for their principals. They have FU money, if they're not willing to, who is?