Be kind to yourself creatively
This post is mainly about original characters
So I wrote this sentiment in a collection of tags on a different post, but I wanted to actually write it all down in my own post.
This is the post that triggered my ramble.
On that post I put in my tags something along the lines of sharing your ocs with others helps you grow them because someone might highlight something you hadn't thought about before, which then leads to character growth. I think it then also spiralled me into saying something about making comparisons, and that when I was younger I would often find myself comparing whatever original works/characters/art I had created to other people's and that it stunted my confidence and therefore my creativity.
I suppose the reason I'm rambling about this is because I have been creating original characters for, gosh, years now and I have had a lot of time to make mistakes and I hope that I can offer advice to people who might be starting out or are just feeling a little low about their work!
So, here goes, with the full capacity of my lungs:
BE KIND TO YOURSELF CREATIVELY.
Or you'll catch a rogue Goose coming for your knees-
Seriously, be kind, because everyone has to start out somewhere and I will put money on it that no one starts out with a perfectly developed original character or works.
You're allowed to take baby steps.
You're allowed to be rough around the edges.
Never compare whatever you create to anyone else because we are all walking a different path. You may compare your newly born original character to one that has been worked on for years and therefore the comparison is unfair!
Even then, even if you compared two equally fleshed out characters to each other, the comparisons would still be unfair; you know why? Because they are individuals. No one character is the same and creativity is SUBJECTIVE.
So please, whether you've been making original characters for a long time or have only just started, remember this:
Be kind to yourself
Walk your creative path at your own pace <3
Goose
10 notes
·
View notes
Verdade, bem verdade isso ai que ta falando
0 notes
part 2!!!! [read part one here]
transcript below the cut arranged into stanzas to help show where the rhymes are:
“that’s why they brought gem in? as a failsafe?” as a pawn.
we were told to point her at whoever we need gone
“gem won’t hurt her allies. …yet.” the curse she carries will
it’s had its eye on her since she lost the other eye
she was specially selected for her hunting skill
it’s quite the high honor. “wow. how generous.” we try
think about it: why does almost no one fight the curse?
“given how fast scott killed skizz last season, i can guess.”
[“any pain you spare your friends, you’ll have to suffer worse”?]
it’s designed to shut down higher reasoning with stress
3K notes
·
View notes
the fact that charles was so gentle and sincere with his answer to edwin's confession is something I could never forget... because that's what love is about, right?
love is in the way charles could never hurt edwin on purpose, is in the way he protects him, in the way he knows when edwin needs to be seen; love is in the choice of every one of his words, in the way he knows that being honest is the only right answer.
there's still forever waiting for them, there's still forever waiting for charles to figure it out, to discover if he loves edwin in a romantic way too, and it doesn't matter if is not romantic in the end, because that it's just a side of the love they share.
i think is so important not to overlook something like that, not to let that pending romance overshadow the fact that they already love each other in every other way.
because in the end, we are talking about two boys that have experienced excruciating pain, that have seen horrifying things during all their existences, and in spite of it, or maybe because of it, are capable of loving each other in a way that's so pure and strong and relentless...
reducing the importance of it to a reciprocated romantic love seems so simplistic and inconsiderate to me.
770 notes
·
View notes
kevin day
watched a man be cut into pieces when he was 12 so he would understand what happens to those who defy the moriyamas
was raised in a cult, subjected to extreme labour and pressure and expectations from a young age, running on 16 hour days with no privacy and little to no autonomy
was raised in an environment where everything hinged on his ability to play. was deprived of food and rest if his performance wasn't satisfactory
was abused physically, emotionally, psychologically by his coaches, his godfather, his 'brother'. was forced to watch said brother inflict unimaginable torture on his friend for years
was forced to hide all of that due to also being a celebrity and growing up in the public eye
unexpectedly had to remove himself from that toxic but familiar environment, leaving his friend behind, in order to survive
had to learn how to function outside of that environment while adapting to a new team and using his non-dominant hand for everything in mere months
so yes i think he deserves some respect
588 notes
·
View notes
"Reviewers told the report’s authors that AI summaries often missed emphasis, nuance and context; included incorrect information or missed relevant information; and sometimes focused on auxiliary points or introduced irrelevant information. Three of the five reviewers said they guessed that they were reviewing AI content.
The reviewers’ overall feedback was that they felt AI summaries may be counterproductive and create further work because of the need to fact-check and refer to original submissions which communicated the message better and more concisely."
Fascinating (the full report is linked in the article). I've seen this kind of summarization being touted as a potential use of LLMs that's given a lot more credibility than more generative prompts. But a major theme of the assessors was that the LLM summaries missed nuance and context that made them effectively useless as summaries. (ex: “The summary does not highlight [FIRM]’s central point…”)
The report emphasizes that better prompting can produce better results, and that new models are likely to improve the capabilities, but I must admit serious skepticism. To put it bluntly, I've seen enough law students try to summarize court rulings to say with confidence that in order to reliably summarize something, you must understand it. A clever reader who is good at pattern recognition can often put together a good-enough summary without really understanding the case, just by skimming the case and grabbing and repeating the bits that look important. And this will work...a lot of the time. Until it really, really doesn't. And those cases where the skim-and-grab method won't work aren't obvious from the outside. And I just don't see a path forward right now for the LLMs to do anything other than skim-and-grab.
Moreover, something that isn't even mentioned in the test is the absence of possibility of follow up. If a human has summarized a document for me and I don't understand something, I can go to the human and say, "hey, what's up with this?" It may be faster and easier than reading the original doc myself, or they can point me to the place in the doc that lead them to a conclusion, or I can even expand my understanding by seeing an interpretation that isn't intuitive to me. I can't do that with an LLM. And again, I can't really see a path forward no matter how advanced the programing is, because the LLM can't actually think.
530 notes
·
View notes