What is it about theology that makes it worth less to analyze than something like fiction, or linguistics?

Trying to understand fictional media is a waste of time because it’s all made up.

Trying to understand linguistics is a waste of time because it’s all made up.

Trying to understand the economy is a waste of time because it’s all made up.

Hey wait this sounds like anti-intellectualism disguised as anti-theism

It is for every person denied healthcare by UHC, and to a smaller extent anyone who’s ever dealt with an insurance company in general

Slavery. Notably not the same thing as chattel slavery. I’m not saying we can’t get worse than we are right now, what I am saying is that no matter how bad things get, we can come back from it. Hell, Germany came back from being controlled by the actual Nazi party.

I know someone is gonna reply saying how awful life was in Germany for several decades between Nazi rule and modern Germany, and I’ll note again that I never said life can’t get worse, I only said there’s no point of no return for a country.

Remember that time we as a country condoned owning people as property? No matter how bad shit gets in the next four years, there’s no point of no return

Citation sorely needed

That’s not a citation silly, that’s a downvote. Don’t get mad at me because there aren’t actually any TVs doing this

Over the years, I’ve tried three different times to fix the backlights on three different TVs. At this point, I understand that a failed backlight is a failed TV

Not to jump to the defense of the cheapest Chinese manufacturer, but my parents’ TCL TV has survived for like 6 years

Day 1,826 of telling people they can buy a smart TV and just not connect it to the internet

You don’t need to spend $700 on a TV that doesn’t connect to the internet

This guide should help

https://github.com/KobeW50/ReVanced-Documentation/blob/main/Reddit-Client-ID-Guide.md

It might seem daunting depending on your experience with computers, but the guide was good enough for my tech-illiterate ass

I’m logged in, so might be worth a try

I would say it’s undead. Like a Lich. The fine folks at revanced.app have done an amazing job reanimating it. It’s just as good as it was last June!

This guide should help

If only Autodesk didn’t exist, then yeah

I love this meme because every app on my phone designed by a company worth more than a million dollars fucking sucks, and the best app on my phone is RIF, an app designed by a single developer, and reanimated into a lich by a team of programmers for free

What took Matt’s code over an entire month to run, viewers optimized so damn hard that the majority of the runtime of the code is just loading the words, so they started optimizing the code to run while the word list was loading. Takes like 4 milliseconds to load the word list, and 2 milliseconds to run the program

People joke about the Parker Square, but he’s unironically the most inspiring public figure imo. The king of Doing The Damn Thing

An Apple expensive joke? What is this, 2011?

When art is commissioned, art is produced. If no human produced it, an ai did. If ai cannot produce art, then a human must have.

Right, so this is what I mean when I say that charitable interpretation is dead. Taking my earlier assertion that AI generated art isn’t real art, along with my assertion that providing a prompt to an AI is essentially equivalent to providing a description to a human artist for a commission, should not have read as an argument for or against AI generated art being real art. Taking those statements together, the only reasonable conclusion you can make about my position is that prompt engineers aren’t artists.

I suppose I don’t understand why engineering a prompt can’t count as an artistic skill, nor why selecting from a number of generated outputs can’t (albeit to probably a much lower degree). At what point does a patron making a commission become a collaborator?

Never. It’s not an artistic skill in the same way that providing a description to an actual artist is not an artistic skill, which was the point of that paragraph. They become a collaborator the moment they make changes to the work, and the level to which they can say they’re an artist depends on what changes they make, and how well they make them.

There’s a couple of orthogonal arguments here, and I’m going to try to address them both: are you an artist if you use AI generated art, and why do I hate AI generated art?

Telling a machine “car, sedan, neon lights, raining, shining asphalt, night time, city lights” is not creating art. To me, it’s equivalent to commissioning art. If I pay someone $25 to draw my D&D character, then I am not an artist, I’ve simply hired one to draw what I wanted to see. Now, if I make any meaningful changes to that artwork, I could be considered an artist. For example, if I commissioned someone else to do the line work, and then I fill in the colors, we’ve both made the artwork. Of course, this can be stretched to an extreme that challenges my descriptivism. If I put a single black pixel on the Mona Lisa, can I say I collaborated on the output? Technically, yes, but I can’t take credit for anything other than putting a black pixel on it. Similarly, I feel that prompt engineers can’t take any credit for the pictures that AI produces past the prompt that they provided and whatever post-processing they do.

As for why I hate AI art, I just hate effortless slop. It’s the exact same thing as YouTube shorts comprised of Family Guy clips and slime. I have a hard time really communicating this feeling to other people, but I know many other people feel the same way. Even aside from the ethical concerns of stealing people’s artwork to train image generators, we live in a capitalist society, and automating things like art generation and youtube shorts uploads harms the people who actually produce those things in the first place.

I love it when people get hyper defensive about this for no reason at all. Aesthetically, AI art is obviously better than a child’s scribbles, but the problem is that AI art is pure aesthetic, with no meaning behind it at all, and if you engage with art purely for the aesthetic, then you fundamentally miss the point of it. AI can’t mean anything when it produces art. It just spits out a series of 1s and 0s based on whatever nonsense you shout into it.

It doesn’t matter how many hours you spend working on a piece, if you use AI (Edit to clarify: if you use AI to generate the art in its entirety), then the AI made the art. An AI cannot answer questions about artistic decisions it made, because it made no decisions. It’s worse than tracing—at least an amateur artist can answer why they decided to copy another artist’s work.

Because charitable interpretation is dead, I have to clarify. I’m not saying that there is no valid use case AI generated art, nor am I saying that all human-made art is good. All I’m saying is that human-made art can have meaning behind it, while AI art cannot. It’s incapable of having meaning, so it isn’t really art.

You can’t just say “excellent question” when someone asks you to clarify your point lmfao

“They’re trying to force our kids to get vaccines so they can manipulate them with 5g wifi”

How could they manipulate your kids with 5g signals?

“That’s a good question innit”