worldofstring

[worldofstring]

Happy—30TH BIRTHDAY ERIC BITTLE?

[worldofstring]

I've finally figured out an argument that convinces coding tech-bros that AI art is bad.

Got into a discussion today (actually a discussion, we were both very reasonable and calm even through I felt like committing violence) with a tech-bro-coded lady who claimed that people use AI in coding all the time so she didn't see why it mattered if people used AI in art.

Obviously I repressed the surge of violence because that would accomplish nothing. Plus, this lady is very articulate, the type who makes claims and you sit there thinking no that's wrong it must be but she said it so well you're kind of just waffling going but, no, wait-- so I knew I had to get this right if I was gonna come out of this unscathed.

The usual arguments about it being about the soul of it and creation fell flat, in fact she was adamant that anyone who believed that was in fact looking down at coding as an art form as she insisted it is. Which, sure, you can totally express yourself through coding. There's a lot more nuance as to the differences but clearly I was not going to win this one.

The other people I was with (literally 8 people anti-ai against her, but you can't change the mind of someone who doesn't want to listen and she just kept accusing us of devaluing coding as an art) took over for I kid you not 15 minutes while I tried desperately to come up with a clear and articulate way to explain the difference to her. They tried so many reasonable arguments, coding being for a function ("what, art doesn't serve a function?") coding being many discrete building blocks that you put together differently, and the AI simply provides the blocks and you put it together yourself ("isn't that what prompt building is") that it's bad for the environment ("but not if it's used for capitalism, hm?" "Yeah literally that's how capitalism works it doesn't care about the environment" she didn't like that response)

But I finally got it.

And the answer is: It's not about what you do, it's about what you claim to be.

Imagine that someone asks an AI to write a code and, by some miracle, it works perfectly without them having to tweak it---which is great because they couldn't tell you what a single solitary thing in that code means.

Now imagine this person, with their code that they don't know how it works, goes and applies to be a coder somewhere, presenting this AI code as proof that they're qualified.

Should they be hired?

She was horrified, of course. Of course they shouldn't be. They're not qualified. They can't actually code, and even if by some miracle they did have an AI successfully write a flawless code for every issue they came across that wouldn't be their code, you could hire any shmuck on the street to do that, no reason to pay someone like they're creating something.

When actual engineers use AI what they do is get some kind of base, which they then go though and check for problems and then if they find any they fix them, and add on to the base code with their own knowledge instead of just trying different prompt after prompt until they randomly come across one that works.

People who generate code like this don't usually call themselves engineers. They're people who needed a bit of code and didn't have the knowledge to generate it, and so used a resource.

And there you go. There are people who have none of the skills of artists, they don't practice, they don't create for themselves. When they feed the prompt to the AI they then don't just use the resulting image as a reference point for their own personal masterpiece, and if they don't like it they don't have the skills to change it---they simply try another prompt, and do that until they get something they like.

These people are calling themselves artists.

Not only that, these people are bringing the AI generated thing to interviews, and they are getting hired, leaving people who slave over their craft out of the job.

And that is the difference, for the tech bros who think AI art isn't a big deal.

[worldofstring]

This man has put a truly amazing amount of effort into making strangers laugh, and the delight they are both taking in the payoff is the sort of thing that gives me hope for humanity.

[worldofstring]

[worldofstring]

Put the candle back.

[worldofstring]

I mean, that moment in the body-switching episode ALONE

The best way I can describe why you need to watch Farscape is that it's Star Trek for sex freaks. And yes, I hear you out there, saying "umm actually Star Trek is Star Trek for sex freaks" but I am looking you in your eyes when I Assure you that it is not even approaching Farscape's level. "But OP have you seen the episode where-" yes. Yes I have. Farscape's doing it freakier. And sexier. I don't know how it's allowed either.

[worldofstring]

I want you to remember:

The fascists hate you too and they just will pretend otherwise until after they've killed the rest of us, before they turn on you.

[worldofstring]

Language English language Latin not is.

Or as Strunk and White said in Elements of Style (to the best of my memory), "Feel free to ignore everything in this book rather than write something inelegant."

[worldofstring]

The scientific understanding of sensory neurons has come vast distances in recent decades, and we owe it to David Ginty. This article is fascinating and you should read it. I mean, it includes this paragraph:

In a study published in June 2024, Ginty and his collaborators found that Krause corpuscles are composed of axon endings from two types of fast-conducting neurons. By activating or removing these neurons in mice, the team showed that they trigger sexual arousal(opens a new tab). Like Meissner corpuscles, Krause corpuscles detect vibration. “���Why vibration?’ you might ask,” Ginty said. “Because when skin glides across skin, it creates micro-vibrations. These guys are really good at picking those up.” Krause corpuscles are most sensitive to frequencies around 40 to 80 hertz, which is precisely the range of vibrating sex toys.

[worldofstring]

we need to start teaching baby fags that it's okay to be fat and/or old because it's really starting to get dire out here

[worldofstring]

(The world is a better place with bredlik poetry in it. Thank you, Sam Garland/Poem_for_your_sprog.)

My nayme is Bird

and wen it's nyte,

a dozing man

I giev a fryte.

His weary mynde

evokes Lenore,

I play a trick,

I tap the door.

[worldofstring]

[worldofstring]

Oh god, why didn’t you just let him through?

[worldofstring]

Not. One. Fucking. Dime.

Watching HBO Harry Potter at all, by any means is a bad idea, actually. Here's why.

For as long as Rowling's transphobia has been undeniable, a common refrain among fans who just don't want to let HP go has been "just pirate it!" Because if you're pirating it, that doesn't put money in Rowling's pockets, so it's all good - supposedly.

But here's the deal: if you watch this new series by any means whatsoever, you are going to want to do fandom things over it. You're going to want to make fanart. You're going to want to write fanfic. You're going to want to post analyses and headcanons, all of which will constitute free advertisement for the series.

Maybe you won't do that, though. Maybe you'll refrain with the self-control of the most devout nun. But it's gonna suck.

But also, those pirate sites? Many of them boost popular content on their front pages. And as benpaddon pointed out:

In a post-Community world, a lot of production companies are keeping an eye on which of their shows and films are being shared on illegal streaming and torrent sites. They still use that information to gauge a show's popularity and, again, they can and will use that data to attract licensees.

In other words, HBO will very likely be watching pirate sites to decide how much merch and tie-in media they're going to produce. And of course, all merchandise and tie-in media sales will benefit Rowling, and all merch will function as advertising.

It's understandable if you're having difficulty letting Harry Potter go because you got attached to the books or the movies. I get that. But watching the HBO series will make this problem even worse for you, and it will benefit JKR.

[worldofstring]

They're wanting to change the definition of water to see which water would qualify under the Clean Water Act...I wish I was making this up.

What this means, in layman's terms, is that not all water or wetlands would be under environmental protections, so some could legally be dumped in, scraped out of, or otherwise harmed.

The comment period for this is pretty short (just a few days left!) so please submit comments asking for ALL water to be protected.

[worldofstring]

https://twitter.com/coff33detective/status/1271463582312673281

“make yourselves impossible to ignore. 10,000 signatures on twitter is a lot but 10 unique personal emails is enough to derail an entire council session.”