daniskarma

The way some websites just guess your language via IP geolocation infuriates me.

People with a lot of money doesn't really want just money. They want power to impose their views over the rest. Money is just a mean to do so.

Buying drugs and gooner games. That's the satoshi dream.

I wish I could go to bed early. But noisy neighbours make it impossible.

I basically need them to go to sleep before I can go to sleep.

Also consider that you may be the imperfect ally.

Maybe you are on the wrong about something and the other person you think they are imperfect are on the right. One of the things about being open-minded is precisely having the mind open to different ideas (all within reason of course).

I too have been seeing a tendency of left wing fundamentalism where there less and less room to discuss anything each year. I don't think that's healthy. I get that's a defense mechanism to cope with far-right rise, but I think it is a mistake.

I think the thing that made left wing the intellectual's choice and the best choice it's that it's funded on reason and not in indiscutible and inamovible dogmas. In order to keep it this way there need to be giggle room, there need to be people who differ in some topics, there need to be variety, there need to be different opinions from different environments and different social backgrounds.

And it's not that because they are different they are wrong. They might as well be right and you are the one on the wrong. The purest dogma may be wrong. That's why diversity is needed. Without diversity a bad dogma will never get questioned, and thus never will change to something better.

Once again. All within reason, I'm not saying to tolerate the intolerant. I'm saying that not everyone who has a slightly different way of thinking is an intolerant fascist neo-hotler.

So I say. Accept the different but not only with the hope of "converting" them. Accept them because overall you have more in common and because you love people having different ways of seeing the world.

If you do it with the idea of "converting" them I think things are going to go badly. Just accept them, they may convert or you may convert or no one may convert and you both keep coexisting without having to agree 100% on everything. And that's fine.

Photography didn't replace painted art.

Digital art didn't replace traditional art.

3d art didn't replace hand drawn art.

Why is AI going to replace anything?

I think that idea is based on a proposition "AI generated images will replace all other type of images" which is not true.

It's just another tool that will be used among others, some people will use it, some people won't, some people will use as a mixed media utility.

The existence of one thing doesn't invalidate or harm the existence of another. As in many aspects of life most things can coexist together.

I visit some image boards which are media neutral, this meaning they don't discriminate by media. Most art there used to be digital painted or 3d, and now there is AI art but it hasn't replaced anything. Digital and 3d art are posted at the same rate, now there is just more art in the form of AI generated art. It didn't replace the other artists, it just added to them. Now there's more content for people to enjoy, everyone wins.

Plenty of artists stole other people's art. Entire genres are based on that. And one can even argue that all art is derivative and that truly original art do no exist.

It's not just prompts there are hundreds or thousands of different variables, several programs you can join in different positions, you can make it complex to inimaginable level, to writing your own programs to do part of the task, or making your own Lora with your art or training a lors with other people's art to achieve the result you want, it can get infinitely complex. You not liking or thinking is boring is irrelevant. Is complex enough and you can achieve specific results. It take time and expertise to do it right, as any other technique. And at the end it gives you enough freedom to be able to use it to express yourself which, in my book, is the definition of art.

You don't need to explain art to me. I've been doing artistic work as amateur for several decades now, I can more or less paint, write and play some instruments, I have a few short stories with a few thousands readers, it's nothing, but I know what the creative process is. And I've studied several courses of art history in university. I'm quite knowledge on the topic. I know about AI art because I find it extremely interesting and I've played quite a lot with it. But to be true most of the artistic things I still do are all manual, because I like it better, and because I get better results doing it like that. But I've seen other people getting very good results with AI tools.

Go search renaissance or baroque Churches and then come back and tell me that "copying other people's work is not art". Art being so different artist to artist is a relative recent thing, for most history all artists in a period just keep copying each other blatantly. I remember doing an exam where we had two pictures of two nearly identical renaissance churches and had to be able to differentiate the architects, and it was HARD. Those fuckers didn't need AI to copy each other's styles to the last stone. And nowadays are still studied as grand masters of their art.

I don't know if universally but I think all that use basic steam drm.

I found in cs.rin.ru. There is even a post explaining how it works.

If you ever downloaded a game with a basic steam crack you already have it. The files are the same for all games.

The bar is, indeed, very low. By comparison I don't feel as predated as in other shops.

I have codex steamdrm crack at good custody for saving my library when it happens.

At that point you'll have more fun working for a bank. You'll be looking at less spreadsheets at least.

Your definition on what constitutes putting "humanity" into a piece of art is completely arbitrary. Thus I, and any rational being, reject it.

If a human have a image in his head and put it on any media that's putting "humanity" into art. You can do it with AI, so the debate is closed for me. I've had images in my head that, after a lot of work, I've been able to put into a bitmap. The accuracy in which you can translate the image is a matter of skill as with any art of trade. But it can certainly be done with great accuracy using AI tools.

So there's no rational argument to say that AI art cannot have "humanity". Unless you start talking about "souls" or something like that.