Technically, we don't know that he isn't. That kind of money likely means an assassination would be heavily planned out and need to look like natural causes because if was obvious he'd potentially put a target on his own back from other billionaires.
But I seriously doubt he'd do this anyway.
I can't draw as good as AI can and I don't care enough to learn.
I can write a lot better though.
I generally use local LLM's and Image generators for role playing though. (Yes that kind)
Yes, but it hurts him emotionally to call him a fake gamer.
Permanently Deleted
Artistry is not simply the assembly of images. And good artistry requires intention and expression, typically in order to communicate a novel idea.
How does that refute my statement? I never claimed an assembly of images = art.
How long do I need to analyze a piece of material to determine whether it is a real message or a procedural generation? How do I discern real conversations from automated prompts my partner never meant to send? How do I manage my own response to a deluge of clumsy attempts at manipulation?
This isn’t an issue of AI content being “art” or not. This is an issue of AI content being industrially generated spam content.
I don't think even the people who unironically call themselves "AI artists", as delusional as they are, would defend using AI to manipulate people or generate ad spam with it. (maybe some of them would)
This stuff doesn’t exist without commercialization precisely because of the volume of material and resources necessary to make it work.
I think again you are missing what my point was. I was talking about this at an individual usage level. A person could load up a local model as is and generate some stuff for use at home. No transactions occurred.
As for how generative AI got to this point, I don't think even then commercialization was an inevitable requirement for its existence. That's how it played out to a certain degree, but technology frequently is created by massive government grants historically. The internet itself is an example of this.
Permanently Deleted
I think the discourse around AI Images as to whether they are art is irrelevant.
AI generated images are images. Images can serve a purpose and use. Whether its "art" should never have been the point people attempted to defend.
Even without commercialization, people make AI generated images for their own personal use. No money has to exchange hands at any point for someone to make use of generated AI images.
Permanently Deleted
People who unironically call themselves "AI Artists" are easy targets.
I get what you mean but accurate understanding of reality matters in terms of survival, there is a reason the most elderly groups actually shifted left in 2024 compared to 2020, Covid killed a lot of rightwing anti-mask elderly people.
Further, one's ability and proclivity to vote can also be impacted by their financial situation. And people who ignore reality are perpetually at risk of losing their wealth due to poor planning, bad investments, or even outright scams. Seeing as we are about to hit a major economic disaster this is also going to effect elections in the future.
Microsoft's Copilot funnily enough actually provides sources that it pulls from the internet if you ask it to.
He'd have a McDonald's menu, not Wendy's.
This is the reason I'm a Mutualist/Market-Socialist.
I think that its a system that metaphorically is trained in Aikido against some of human's worst elements and maximizes the positive of human being's behavior.
I enjoy Sudoku, but that is something I learned. There is no “enjoy sudoko” element within me that I did not put there myself.
You didn't enjoy learning Sudoku in the first place? Did you have to force yourself? Did someone teach you how to enjoy sodoku after you learned how to actually play?
Maybe there isn't a specific Sudoku drive in human beings but that's not what intrinsically means. There is an intrinsic drive to follow your natural intellectual and physical interests that do not have to be taught. They are variable depending on the person's personal inclinations, but you are not "trained" to enjoy something. Even as seemingly fundamental like reading. You might have to learn how to read first, but that's not being "trained to enjoy" reading. Whether you enjoy it depends on the type of person you are.
Like, if I saw someone doing something that looks fun or interesting, I'd want to participate intrinsically.
If someone offered me money to participate I would be extrinsically motivated.
They did. Everyone I knew back in the Windows 3.1 days already had computers. Most of those people didn’t have Windows, and used standalone applications. The increase in ownership came when hardware prices finally fell enough for them to be affordable. Windows development was a result of that uptick, not the cause.
I mean, maybe, price is obviously a compelling aspect here. Its hard to separate correlation and causation, though I'll hand you that price was probably more compelling.
That said, the people you knew who already owned computers were part of a minority, only about 15% of American households had a computer when Windows 3.1 released.
Dude, in a previous job I had a superior aggressively refuse to let me teach him how to do some extremely basic things on his computer (he'd just call me over to do it whenever he needed it done) and told me he did not know what an internet browser was (he used one everyday).
Now, I did not understand his thought process, but he exists. There are 100% people who understand the basics but experience intense cognitive stress at the mere sight of a command line.
The only things that people “intrinsically” want are food and fornication. Everything else, they have been taught and trained.
EVERYTHING? I enjoy doing things that aren't eating and sex on a intrinsic level that I was never trained to enjoy. I just... wanted to do those things. A lot of things are intrinsically fun that are not eating and sex.
The training they have received from Microsoft domination has been “don’t learn how to use a computer”.
Why didn't people adopt personal computers en masse before Windows came to be then? After Windows 3.0, personal ownership of computers more than doubled over the course of 5-6 years and then continued to balloon, speeding up adoption well beyond the previous decade.
Look, I'm not a fan of Microsoft either but this is conspiracism.
Microsoft is not the reason I believe its a pipedream to turn people into computer techs. Its a cold hard reality.
Even particularly smart people have to want to be computer techs. I work with teachers, genuinely smart people, who have zero desire or motivation to learn computer use outside how it can help them teach in a fairly "if its not broke don't fix it" mentality. They aren't incurious but they have limited time and resources and they use such elsewhere. My attempts to get them to even try Linux Mint has thus far failed, the idea that I could get them to learn CLI is absurd.
Don't get me wrong, I believe even dim wits could learn to be computer techs and use a command line, but that requires them to want that. Most people do not intrinsically desire that.
What is your goal? Are you content with Linux being niche?
If not, what group do you think this appeals to?
The casual device user continues to ignore Windows desktops and use their phone let alone Linux at this point.
The normie desktop user who just wants a internet browser and basic office software can easily be won over to Linux Mint. You advocating everything be CLI based will kill that.
The casual desktop enthusiast & PC gamer will get irritated and impatient and go back to comfy Windows. They mostly just want their games to run smoothly and maybe look pretty. Maybe install an application that does something moderately technical for them with tweaks here and there.
You already have the hardcore techy users. They don't need to be converted.
In my opinion, Linux and its various distro's main goal ought to be to undermine for-profit OS. Not to turn everyone into computer techs. The latter is a pipe dream anyway.
You do understand that any USA person who does that would have to check their head for attitudes right?
Attitude as in instability or propensity to commit war crimes against MAGA people? I might fail that check admittedly.
Responsibility for society starts at young adulthood, which is a fuzzy line because it varies per person. Bizarre that you would try to dissociate being a member of a culture and society without acknowledging participation and maintenance and responsibility…
I'm not "trying to dissociate" anything of the sort. I've thought and read and debated about about the nature of human existence for an abnormally long time and what I've told you is simply a major piece of my current conclusions.
If anything I'm ravenously seeking out someone to convince me my ideas are wrong. Partly because when someone does that it to me it means my beliefs become just that much more refined and accurate. Not enough people are willing to challenge their own beliefs or actively engage in defending them. They attach their ideology to their very identity and react emotionally to counters to their beliefs. I don't do that or respect that. My loyalty is to reality, not my sense of belonging or identity.
Another reason is a lot of my own beliefs about life and existence (and for instance the current political realities of the country I live in) are quite unpleasant and many of them I'd like to be rid of if I could find some counters convincing enough to break from them I'd honestly be relieved.
If anything my lack of dissociation is making me cripplingly depressed and angry and probably part of why I'm on track for a high blood pressure diagnosis.
but very “American.” It capitulates to authority.
I can assure you that my specific beliefs are not the norm for Americans. Most Americans do not have any desire to think deeply about their own ideology at all, and even those that talk of ideology often just embrace some well developed "counter cultural" identity and call it their ideology without much further analysis.
Its quite simple. The events reported on this post would not have happened if Kamala Harris had won the 2024 Presidential election.
If you disagree, you are either willfully stupid or malevolent and no one should listen to a word you say.
I think you believe I and other Canadians are saying no USA citizens should move to Canada. I have heard a few people mention this but it’s fringe.
I never thought this, you made it clear that wasn’t your belief. No worries here.
So it sounds like you are suggesting we should welcome those who hold us in contempt by hiding behind ideology. “Oh you’re just overreacting” say the US centrists.
I'm not fan of centrists, but I don't think requiring people to be leftwing to enter Canada would be good.
So yes, perhaps we should be screening immigrants for their position on our pending invasion. I’m not asserting that, but I wouldn’t be surprised if security protocols are enacted at borders.
I actually kind of think that would be a reasonable thing to ask. But of course I’ll admit it’d be likely impossible to verify. You’d at least filter out the most brazen rightwing US patriots.
I'll even go so far as to say that in some level of my own fleeting suicidal ideation, I've thought about joining the Canadian military on the front line. And I'd be lying if I did not fantasize a little about seeking revenge on my "excompatriots"... quite directly via such a route. Specifically of the MAGA variety.
I'd probably be a bit more Sherman-esque in my attitude.
These MAGA people... they are simply no longer people I'm interested in empathizing with at virtually any level. My hatred of them is at an intensity that is almost certainly irrational and self destructive.
I'd bet there are many other Americans that feel very similarly.
lol well statistically a large number of US immigrants do believe in original sin. However I am pointing out that it will be difficult for someone who was raised in a highly individualistic culture to take responsibility for the society they come from, and for the beliefs they carry forward. So yeah, if you come to Canada, and pretend we are just as individualistic as the USA, you’re going to feel like a hero around all these meek and diminished folk. And that has been happening my whole life, “americans” who move here and talk down while acting convivial and take over all the little ponds they swim in. It’s a type. Usually professional or middle class. Often they are “fleeing” the States… but not really. I grew up with an influx of draft dodgers, and yeah, they were welcomed, but there were problems, and here’s the thing: they are often oblivious to the fundamental cultural differences.
The amount of self reported individualism in Canada vs the US is virtually identical. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2004/01/14/americans-and-canadians/ (under “Values: Similarities and Differences”) this is an old survey, but I would be doubtful the numbers have meaningfully shifted since.
But this is besides a far more interesting point for me that I really hope you will engage with.
That is just a bizarre conservative attitude that works well for neo-aristocracy goals. It’s destructive to other societies and we wish you wouldn’t export that unwelcome shit in your media and migrants.
And here is the most interesting element of the conversation and I'll admit its almost a tangent. That said, I'm disagreeing in good faith.
Its not an “attitude” it is factual. Before you were born, did you get some kind of “create a character” prompt? Of course not.
It is sheer pure reality: no one chooses to even be here or anywhere for that matter. That would make no sense.
Nonetheless, to support the pressure to conform and serve a society that arguably as a collective has a far more significant culpability for one’s non-consentual existence as an individual I find as a sort of absurdity. Individuals should respect each other, but they owe nothing to the society (or parents) that birthed them, if anything society (and parents) owe them an unpayable and infinite debt.
Of course, I also don't believe in free will, and that in of itself complicates my thoughts on these matters.
My understanding is because of the way its worded that it could be generously interpreted by SCOTUS to favor Trump running as VP. I can't remember the specifics but I remember reading such.
Do you really think some white middle class middle Americans that only vaguely care about Palestine weren't moved a notch against voting for Harris? There was percentage of them that was demotivated by a straw that broke the camels back.
Or more significantly that young new voters weren't moved in this direction by pro-palestinian tiktok?
Sure, I wouldn't put all the blame on that, but some of the blame goes there.
Also I fucking hate Leftists who "never vote" anyway so fuck them regardless.