Value of art is always in the eye of the beholder. If many people see the value, then it receives that from the public.
I would not say AI generated art has the same value as the Mona Lisa per se, quite the contrary. I’m only declaring both as a form of art.
Yes, in the same way a field of corn on a farm can be seen as art. We do not have full control over how it actually looks in the end, but it’s an expression by natural phenomena (sometimes guided or initiated by humans).
You could argue about the amount of free will required to create art. But in that case one could philosophically raise the question if humans even have free will, and if anything may be called art then at all.
I think if something is observed as art, it is by definition art. And perhaps everything that exists and is created could fit that description. But personally one of the more interesting types of art to me are where living beings are involved in the creation, while they’re actually thinking of creating art; and I think most discussions are about that concrete level.
I’d say that open for discussion. Even taking a dump can be seen from the perspective of art, although I agree for us humans it’s quite far out there.
Perhaps to smallen the gap, think of a dung beetle rolling a ball of poo.
I’m not saying you have to like it or even that it’s noteworthy, but art in my opinion as definition can be anything that is created by something. As long as an observer looks at it as if it were art.
You’ve convinced me, your comment is objectively bad art.
I’d say everything is art, just on different levels to different people. Or nothing is art.
The point is, laying all these people off with performance as reason protects Cloudflare in not having to pay extra (which would be legally needed if the employee was not at fault).
This is probably not any kind of proof she can use, but it does make people aware of how Cloudflare operates.
It’s understandable companies have to fire people and as an employee you’d probably do best to accept the harsh reality of a business. But if they really communicate fake causes with lay-offs (not only hurting the employee mentally, but also financially bypassing rightful compensation by law), this should be known by the public.
To be fair though, we cannot confirm her statements to be true either. But I think it’s an interesting share nonetheless.
Hasn’t it just lost its context and somewhat “forgotten” what the intentions of the prompt were?
Well, it depends on your bubble I guess. But personally I’d say it’s underrated and overrated at the same time, but mostly underrated.
It depends on your expectations and way of usage in your toolbox I’d say. It keeps surprising me weekly how fast progress is. But we get used to it perhaps.
A bunch of cells in rapid development with the potential to become a human being. Murder is a strong term, but in a broad sense I don’t think your insinuation is wrong per se.
This might be getting a bit controversial, but for the sake of discussion:
The important thing here is, do you mind if that potential for life is taken away. In this case we place priority on the human being that eventually has to dedicate her life to that potential. Or is that new potential more important than that already existing, conscious human being (especially when there are physical / mental problems involved)?
It comes down to why we live, and why must we live? Personally I believe trying to avoid (potential of) suffering is a more reasonable concept.
If one gives life to a baby, you give it a potential for suffering which it otherwise does not. I’d say the ways one can suffer is of a greater weight than the ways one can be happy. So if you go the route of creating life, you better be damn confident that you are in a good position to do that.
In that philosophy ‘murdering’ a potential with a large chance of creating more suffering for the collective is not that bad. One might view this differently when the being is conscious and might actively not want to die, as we bring the complexity of individual human choice to the table and what worth that has; but I think we can agree that is not applicable on the unborn potential human being discussed in this topic.
Nutsack and CaptainVaqina calling each other pussy.
This one is also pretty cool, couple of years ago. It was the first time I heard they had incorporated touch, but looks awesome.
Windows 7 truly was a blessing; fresh new update and performant, but before the double interface hell and advanced taskbar shit with intrusive ads implemented.
At least that’s how I remember it.
Good solution, perhaps two simple options at browser install: Default / Custom. That way you don’t have to uninstall all the stuff at the end.
Thank you for your patience with me. I think I understand you better now, as I sense you might have added some additional perspectives to my views. I’ll let it simmer in my mind a bit. Thanks again.
I understand that you are frustrated, but in my opinion you are using a lot of black/white arguments. Let’s try to work this out, as I think definition differences and perspective are confusing things.
A. I’m not saying porn is the only way out, I’m saying it’s an outlet of existing (sexual) urges. Watching porn is as necessary as eating meat, both are not needed to survive and have not been accessible to people in the past per se. It’s an urge you can act on, purely for pleasure. Just like toying with one’s new iPhone can be considered a pleasure, while we might want to look for a more sustainable alternative that is not build on workforce abuse of all ages. But indeed, not all phones are bad, there is nuance and most people will need one. Just like not all food is bad, but we’ve got some pretty nasty stuff done to our fellow-earthlings. But there is nuance.
B. Porn can be consensual stimulating graphic imagery, for example in the form of a couple sharing part of their love life, a photoshoot of a nude model, but it can also be found in ancient paintings and has been common in books as old as time itself as texts (figuratively speaking). This distinction is important in the argument.
Perhaps we need to define the term porn better; as I understand it you mean the non-consensual form of real people in sexual situations in media.
And if I understand you correctly, you say that if you look at any of the forms of porn I’ve described above than you are masturbating to rape. But that’s strong generalizing in my opinion.
What I do get though, is the part when what you find online is questionable and you can’t see the difference. I’d say let’s rule out all the porn that does not have an approval certificate of actual consent by an official authority.
C. 130 years ago iPhones did not exist either, the context made them useful, but I think I get what you mean with that argument. Just to keep things in balance, perhaps the amount of sexual abuse was higher as well then, as there was less of an outlet for sexual frustration / less regulation. I don’t think we can get factual records on that, as sex has always been a bit of a taboo subject. What I’m sure of though is that sexual imagery has been around for far longer than 130 years.
D. In my opinion the Fairphone alternative (fairtrade, relatively expensive, sustainable) to an iPhone now (forced -child- labor, relatively cheap, marketed as 2 year object) is on an abstract level like the nuance discussion between consensual porn and nonconsensual. Most people do not know the difference even after some research. It is both extremely hurtful for real people, downright sadistic even, hurtful for the environment and just surfing in a wave of lustful dopamine. In both cases most people do not care enough to pay a bit extra, even do research.
In both cases people might throw the subjects under the bus because they do not see the relevance, while they’re both supported by extreme human suffering in the bad scenario. They do not want to see similarities between suffering if it does not support their story.
And I say yes, there is pain, and it is gutwrechingly terrible. So are humans, I despise all of us for existing. But the truth is just that we are bad at looking at our own flaws and good at pointing out others. We still want things to change? We must work together and that starts with nuance.
I acknowledge the downsides of porn, I do not ask of you to acknowledge an upside, only hope to instill a bit of nuance in the definitions we’re talking about.
I think that’s where most of this triggers emotions and confusion.
Research on stuff you consume is a good habit, but most people don’t make time to check every source, even on things they use daily like a phone (or people would all buy Fairphones).
I think most sane people do not like to masturbate to something when they believe it actually causes harm. That’s why this is a news item, porn for most people is not about abuse and they are not fine with it (although I agree much content is often extremely aggressive). As for many it’s supposed to be a window of letting sexual frustration out; porn is about sex, which is one of the core drive factors of most existing species and one of the main reasons we exist today. Not everyone feels as strongly about it, but one cannot deny the human urges surrounding it.
For many people porn in general can fulfill a need, and therefore it’s quite easy for them to overlook the dark side of porn out of habit, just like eating animals is culturally acceptable to most, as well as buying the latest phone every two years while child labour is likely involved. People get their dopamine hit by different things and may look away from questionable parts. I’d figure that includes us, perhaps on different subjects.
I think we should all critically look at our own behaviour. We’re all bad and hypocrites in my perspective, but not on purpose per se. Most discussion in this topic I see is about some people trying to admit they’re confused and defending their past behaviour without wanting to give it all up and others that claim to have the moral highground while ignoring any nuance.
I think it’s good to look at ourselves and our own shortcomings. Everyone has different flaws, some might be equally morally questionable. Let’s acknowledge that and share our views. And together make sure that we strongly form a bond on that practices like in this news post will not happen again. This is a lot easier if we can understand the consumers of porn related services and work together to weed out the dark while acknowledging existing needs.
In this case it’s the “suspect” of racism, in which I think we all agree should not directly lock you out of your account, but perhaps give you a warning.
But what if it’s suspected illegal actions or content? Like them catching the home server being part of a DDoS attack, or overhearing signs of child abuse / identifying possible child pornography content or noticing illicit gun ownership. Their AI will determine that there’s a 97% chance of that being the case.
I wonder if that would change things.
If such a system is not allowed to block usage, it will probably at least inform the local police.Your home setup will in most cases eventually act as a panopticon.
For others like me interested in the exact example; it’s about the difficulty of designing a trash can that smart bears cannot open and dumb tourists still can. You cannot create something too secure if you still want dumb people to use it as well, due to the overlap.
The quote is not really saying dumb people will break / nullify security, like I read in the above comment, but more that they just will not be able to operate it.
That’s a fair point. And I believe AI should be able to combine legal material to create illegal material. Although this still feels wrong, if it excludes suffering in base material and reduces future (child) suffering, I’d say we should do research on it at least. Even if it’s controversial, we need to look at the rationale behind it.
Aren’t there like cheat servers and non-cheat servers? Or is that a “gentleman’s agreement” that not everyone is playing fair with if you can’t fully block it because of mods etc?