dagazzard

[dagazzard]

today's bug thing are these scarab beetle necklaces!

[dagazzard]

Des Moines Tribune, Iowa, September 21, 1960

[dagazzard]

uploading pictures of the bugs that come to my Meadow so they can be identified on iNaturalist has introduced me to bugs that are weirder than I could possibly have imagined. Did yall know that wasps of the genus Parancistrocerus have compartments in their bodies to hold symbiotic mites?

[dagazzard]

[dagazzard]

[dagazzard]

rb to make a biological essentialist mad <3

[dagazzard]

[dagazzard]

[dagazzard]

I had a few requests to repost this as its own rebloggable post, so here you go. The original person I was responding to deactivated their reblogs, presumably because they got a lot of unpleasantness in the notes. This is practising healthy online boundaries, and I'd appreciate it if people don't give them any sh** for it.

---------------------------------

Hm, there are at least three major problems to consider, I think. This is going to be a bit long, so bear with me, but I promise that I will not at any point argue in favor of copyright, argue on the grounds of human ability, and I will not at any point appeal to concepts of "soul" or "spirit."

1: Environmental impact

It's fairly well documented at this point that the sheer power requirements to run AI data centers and computation have caused the major tech companies betting the farm on this technology to invest in a huge expansion of data centers, which in turn both require huge amounts of additional power (which tends to be drawn from fossil fuel sources) and huge amounts of water for cooling.

For reasons unrelated to AI as a technology as such, but related to the capitalist mode of production which produces "AI" as a product and service, the burdens and costs of creating this new infrastructure falls disproportionately on the poor, the marginalized and upon the global south, as it always does. It is of course to be noted that these tech companies are likely to also be using generative AI as an excuse to backslide on their environmental commitments and massively expand their infrastructure with government and venture capital money, but generative AI is a not-insignificant part of the problem.

2: Economic impact

The primary stated purpose of generative AI as a business is to replace workers. It is a form of automation, and generative AI specifically targets jobs requiring language and visual media skills - whether that be translation, copywriting, creative writing, coding, drawing, painting or graphic design, or any of a thousand other related skills.

The express purpose of adopting the technology widely is to replace hundreds of thousands of workers, who upon losing their jobs will be thrust into precarity, and the industries affected will experience an enormous downwards pressure on wages and an enormous negative impact on processes of unionization and collective bargaining.

One might argue that this is a problem of capitalism more than a problem of generative AI as a technology, which, okay, sure, but capitalism is the system we live under and the value and ethical status of any technology is always evaluated in the context of the system that deploys it. If we lived under Luxury Gay Space Communism, I am sure I would feel different about generative AI; but we don't, so I judge it accordingly. Under the capitalist economic mode of production, generative AI is a fundamental threat to the economic and social well-being of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of workers in hundreds of fields of labor.

3: Freedom of expression

Generative AI as a tool imposes harsh restrictions on freedom of expression, and in a worst-case scenario (i.e. the exact scenario that the developers of these AI tools are trying to make happen), will put huge swaths of artistic expression under the control and economic exploitation of enormous corporations unaccountable to any democratic power.

No generative AI tool can generate any output except that which is allowed for

by its programming as defined by its owners and creators

by its dataset, which must be built and maintained by an organized group

With every single major generative model currently firmly under the control of corporate or national interests, those groups have the ability to exert profound control over which outputs are or are not possible from the most powerful and most capable AI models. The Chinese DeepSeek model, for example, will refuse to answer questions about Tianamen Square, and similar censorship can and will be implemented by other state actors when it suits their purposes.

No generative model can output a picture of a motorcycle unless the database for the model is trained on pictures of motorcycles, and even if it IS trained on pictures of motorcycles, it can and will only ever output motorcycles identical to whatever necessarily limited set of motorcycles are represented in its data. And if a corporation (or government) decides that a model is not allowed to output images of motorcycles, they can implement profound censorship of the concept of motorcycles in their models.

Replace "motorcycle" with "sexual education material," "political literature" or "information about or depictions of queer people or minorities" and you start to see the problem.

One might argue that "users would simply circumvent that restriction," but to say so is to miss the point entirely: savvy power users with an agenda would circumvent the system. Your grandma using the system casually would not, especially if (or when) circumventing the system is made illegal.

Similarly, one might argue that a band of dedicated, democratically minded individuals could simply band together to train and create their own independent models, free of all censorship - but again, the ability to access the infrastructure necessary to build such a project would be contingent on the assent of either corporations or national governments, and both of those groups would inevitably see a completely unbound, democratically governed AI infrastructure as a direct competitor or a political threat, and act accordingly.

Generative AI, logistically and structurally, is a tool of expression which is privileges power. Whoever holds power in a given society has undue ability to influence what it is possible to express via generative AI and who has access to the ability to express it.

Generative AI has been magnanimously made available for "free" thus far, by speculative corporations backed by oceans of venture capital, but they are all expected to turn a profit at some point, and once those screws come down, not only will they silo and closed-source their technology, they will aggressively pursue hostile action towards competitors, and limit access to their Revolutionary™ technology to whoever is most able to either pay or coerce access through force.

In short, whoever has the most money or political power will have access to the greatest degree of freedom of expression from generative AI.

3b: Freedom of expression on the purely aesthetic level

This is a less important objection than point 3 above, but it also needs to be noted that generative AI as a technology is fundamentally based upon and limited by probability.

That is to say, when you prompt a generative AI model to generate a given output, the fundamental nature of the math it uses is a probabilistic attempt to approximate an acceptable answer.

In oversimplified terms, if you ask it for a picture of a motorcycle, it will attempt to output a semi-randomized mixture of all its data which is tagged with "motorcycle," weighted against training data and a history of user feedback, in order to probabilistically arrive at whatever output it calculates the end user is most likely to accept and validate as a "correct" output.

This has some consequences, specifically that generative AI is fundamentally bound as a technology to always and forever regress to the mean. It will always and forever default to and privilege lowest common denominators.

Thus, one of the things generative AI tends to have a lot of trouble with is ugliness. It struggles to generate images which do not conform to dominant standards of beauty and desirability. And I mean this not just in terms of human beauty and desirability, but beauty and desirability across all forms of expression. Generative AI severely struggles to output an ugly landscape image, for example. It struggles to output pictures of kittens that are not cute, it struggles to output pictures of Ferraris that don't look gorgeous or swords that don't look cool. It also struggles to output images of people along the same lines.

The first part of the problem is that the vast, overwhelming amount of input of images bias towards the aesthetically pleasing (because most images that get preserved and uploaded of anything bias towards the aesthetically pleasing). The second part is that, the vast, overwhelming amount of desired and validated outputs also bias towards the aesthetically pleasing, because that is what most users most of the time will inevitably and statistically want and prefer.

Because the vast, overwhelming majority of the model's feedback from users will validate and confirm the correctness of outputs that bias beauty and appeal, models will always be statistically required to generate outputs towards that standard.

The result is that generative AI is, technologically and irrevocably, bound to bias towards and reproduce the lowest common denominator, and it uncritically inherits every single cultural bias of the dominant culture that produces and uses it. Usually this means biases in favor of beauty and appeal, and biases against whatever is considered ugly or undesirable in a culture.

Even if you are the sort of profoundly shallow and unimaginative person who believes that "nobody would ever WANT images that aren't beautiful and appealing," you have to concede that any tool which does not allow you full and equal freedom to depict the ugly and the unconventional is imposing a severe restriction of the freedom of expression of its users.

In conclusion: generative AI is defined by mounting and catastrophic social, economic and environmental costs, and fundamentally and structurally biased in favor of power and capital. Even in the very best-case possible scenario in which all economic and political problems with the technology are solved, its fundamental nature is to regress to the mean and privilege the lowest common denominator, imposing inherent restrictions on freedom of expression. None of these problems are shared by a pencil, or by a typewriter.

[dagazzard]

all RIGHT:

Why You're Writing Medieval (and Medieval-Coded) Women Wrong: A RANT

(Or, For the Love of God, People, Stop Pretending Victorian Style Gender Roles Applied to All of History)

This is a problem I see alllll over the place - I'll be reading a medieval-coded book and the women will be told they aren't allowed to fight or learn or work, that they are only supposed to get married, keep house and have babies, &c &c.

If I point this out ppl will be like "yes but there was misogyny back then! women were treated terribly!" and OK. Stop right there.

By & large, what we as a culture think of as misogyny & patriarchy is the expression prevalent in Victorian times - not medieval. (And NO, this is not me blaming Victorians for their theme park version of "medieval history". This is me blaming 21st century people for being ignorant & refusing to do their homework).

Yes, there was misogyny in medieval times, but 1) in many ways it was actually markedly less severe than Victorian misogyny, tyvm - and 2) it was of a quite different type. (Disclaimer: I am speaking specifically of Frankish, Western European medieval women rather than those in other parts of the world. This applies to a lesser extent in Byzantium and I am still learning about women in the medieval Islamic world.)

So, here are the 2 vital things to remember about women when writing medieval or medieval-coded societies

FIRST. Where in Victorian times the primary axes of prejudice were gender and race - so that a male labourer had more rights than a female of the higher classes, and a middle class white man would be treated with more respect than an African or Indian dignitary - In medieval times, the primary axis of prejudice was, overwhelmingly, class. Thus, Frankish crusader knights arguably felt more solidarity with their Muslim opponents of knightly status, than they did their own peasants. Faith and age were also medieval axes of prejudice - children and young people were exploited ruthlessly, sent into war or marriage at 15 (boys) or 12 (girls). Gender was less important.

What this meant was that a medieval woman could expect - indeed demand - to be treated more or less the same way the men of her class were. Where no ancient legal obstacle existed, such as Salic law, a king's daughter could and did expect to rule, even after marriage.

Women of the knightly class could & did arm & fight - something that required a MASSIVE outlay of money, which was obviously at their discretion & disposal. See: Sichelgaita, Isabel de Conches, the unnamed women fighting in armour as knights during the Third Crusade, as recorded by Muslim chroniclers.

Tolkien's Eowyn is a great example of this medieval attitude to class trumping race: complaining that she's being told not to fight, she stresses her class: "I am of the house of Eorl & not a serving woman". She claims her rights, not as a woman, but as a member of the warrior class and the ruling family. Similarly in Renaissance Venice a doge protested the practice which saw 80% of noble women locked into convents for life: if these had been men they would have been "born to command & govern the world". Their class ought to have exempted them from discrimination on the basis of sex.

So, tip #1 for writing medieval women: remember that their class always outweighed their gender. They might be subordinate to the men within their own class, but not to those below.

SECOND. Whereas Victorians saw women's highest calling as marriage & children - the "angel in the house" ennobling & improving their men on a spiritual but rarely practical level - Medievals by contrast prized virginity/celibacy above marriage, seeing it as a way for women to transcend their sex. Often as nuns, saints, mystics; sometimes as warriors, queens, & ladies; always as businesswomen & merchants, women could & did forge their own paths in life

When Elizabeth I claimed to have "the heart & stomach of a king" & adopted the persona of the virgin queen, this was the norm she appealed to. Women could do things; they just had to prove they were Not Like Other Girls. By Elizabeth's time things were already changing: it was the Reformation that switched the ideal to marriage, & the Enlightenment that divorced femininity from reason, aggression & public life.

For more on this topic, read Katherine Hager's article "Endowed With Manly Courage: Medieval Perceptions of Women in Combat" on women who transcended gender to occupy a liminal space as warrior/virgin/saint.

So, tip #2: remember that for medieval women, wife and mother wasn't the ideal, virgin saint was the ideal. By proving yourself "not like other girls" you could gain significant autonomy & freedom.

Finally a bonus tip: if writing about medieval women, be sure to read writing on women's issues from the time so as to understand the terms in which these women spoke about & defended their ambitions. Start with Christine de Pisan.

I learned all this doing the reading for WATCHERS OF OUTREMER, my series of historical fantasy novels set in the medieval crusader states, which were dominated by strong medieval women! Book 5, THE HOUSE OF MOURNING (forthcoming 2023) will focus, to a greater extent than any other novel I've ever yet read or written, on the experience of women during the crusades - as warriors, captives, and political leaders. I can't wait to share it with you all!

[dagazzard]

Beetle bread, 2023-08-13

[dagazzard]

🩺

[dagazzard]

I think that when people say "we should get together for lunch sometime" it should mean that they want to get together for lunch sometime. Instead of being a generic pleasantry that is said without regard for a desire to eat lunch together.

[dagazzard]

anyways i just love the way kpop demon hunters stayed true to its roots in korean/asian culture, especially around the core theme of community vs individualism

the fact that it's not a single chosen one but a group of three

the fact that the honmoon is not powered by the hunters themselves but by the energy and love of the fans

the fact that gwi-ma turns people into demons by promising that he is the only one who can help them when he is in fact reliant on his army of demons to collect souls for him

the fact that "your idol" is about surrendering yourself to a single higher power while "golden" is about soaring to new heights together

the fact that gwi-ma preys on people's individual insecurities and shame to get inside their heads while rumi, mira, and zoey set them free in the end by encouraging them to embrace their differences and reminding them that they're not alone

the fact that you can see the audience cheering individually and even pushing into each other to get closer to the stage during "your idol"

while they're linking arms and cheering together and hugging during "what it feels like"

i have not seen the live action lilo and stitch but it feels like that movie sits on the opposite end of the spectrum from kpop demon hunters as a case study for how to tell a story in way that is culturally authentic and still resonates with a broader audience

and i think given that the core theme of the movie is all about community over individualism, the ending, particularly as it relates to rumi and jinu's budding romance, is really the perfect culmination of that broader theme

rumi and jinu's connection has all the hallmarks of that all-encompassing, all-consuming, borderline co-dependent first love where you keep your relationship a secret and sneak out of the house to meet up and feel like the other person is the ONLY person who really gets you

i'm the only one who can understand you, i'm the only one who will love you is the kind of thing that sounds romantic when you're 16 until you get older and realize how toxic it actually is and i love that the movie counters that in "what it sounds like" with rumi realizing that she had that love and support all along from her girls, and later, from the fans who continue to cheer them on through their comeback

it's about connection and sisterhood and love and sharing your fears and lifting each other up and becoming stronger and better together

and as compelling as i found rumi/jinu and as much as i would like to see their relationship explored more in a sequel/series, i just really love that this movie, which is clearly targeted at young women, ends on the message that romantic love is not the end all be all, that friendship is just as important if not more so than a romantic partner, that single women can lead successful, fulfilling lives, that true happiness and freedom start from within

it's crazy that this message still seems revolutionary in 2025 but given the current state of the world, it feels more necessary than ever

[dagazzard]

Tree sketches by Sin jong hun

[dagazzard]

why bother caring about the environment when 1. It’s so obviously a lost cause and 2. There’s definitely going to be a nuclear war?

And what are you doing about it Anon? Learn about ecological restoration or get out of my way.

[dagazzard]

Siwa Oasis, Egypt. The 95% salt concentration increases the density of water and buoyancy, making it so you can't sink.