Hemingways_Shotgun

  • 0 Posts
  • 34 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 7th, 2023

help-circle



  • 100%. It’s a matter of where does the technology stop being about “useful for us” and starts being “useful for them”.

    A digital whiteboard would be a good feature (not ‘necessary’, but cool). It’s when they decide it needs to be connected to the internet that it becomes “is this technology serving us…or serving them” that’s the problem.

    I’m not anti-tech at all. Quite the opposite. But I remember the mid-2000s when all of this tech was getting off the ground and it was being innovated and invented for OUR benefit, not for the corporations. That’s when this kind of stuff was fun.











  • I’d have to go with Virus.

    Wipes out enough people to give humanity a chance to at least try something new from the ashes of the old world, but doesn’t leave a lingering threat like Zombies or Aliens or something like that. The survivors (ostensibly those immune to the virus) have struggles, for sure, but at least can rebuild without worrying about a constant existential threat.




  • I can’t quite wrap my head around how to relate to AI generated art.

    Simple. It’s not about art at all. But about “artists”.

    Let’s use an example. Let’s say that you’re a rich person and you want to hire someone to paint a landscape portrait for you. You tell them in detail exactly what you want and they go and do it. Does that make you an artist? Of course not. It makes you the procurer

    So if we replace that hired painter with a computer, does that mean that because no human artist was involved that the title of “artist” automatically reverts to the procurer, meaning the person that told the computer what to do? No.

    Regardless of who (or what) creates the art, the person telling them/it what to paint isn’t a damn artist and doesn’t deserve any financial reward.