Mesa
@Mesa@programming.dev
- Comment on SHL0MS(famous prankster on X/Twitter) baited AI haters by posting a real painting by Monet, claiming it was AI generated. The post got viral(>6M views) as art critics started deleting their replies 2 weeks ago:
I think this comment in this thread answers your question or, at least, other questions of a similar sentiment.
Arguing that AI art is bad by pointing out its material flaws is largely unproductive (I’d even argue that it’s counterproductive) because those flaws are theoretically surmountable. This post is a great example of that, and it highlights the reason I actually hate the presence of AI-generated work amidst the artistic world. It causes humans to hallucinate errors in normal artwork, and it normalizes this wack idea that perfection exists in art. It pollutes our intake of artwork and makes it exhausting to explore unfamiliar artists. As a personal anecdote, I used to love finding tracks on YouTube with less than 300 views and a weird thumbnail. It used to be an instant click. Now, it always feels like there’s an 80% chance that it was soullessly generated almost entirely with AI—and so I click those videos less.
It’s not because AI generated music sounds bad, or because AI generated images look bad. Sometimes they look great. But I don’t really give a shit that it looks great if there’s no human context behind it that I can ponder. AI work removes the value of discussion to me. Fuck that.
I’ve seen discussion about the idea of “the curtain is fucking blue,” as it relates to the crisis of thought-terminating cliches, and the scariest thing to me is that, with AI work, the curtains are actually just fucking blue.
This leads me into a whole rant about how “Death of the Author” is so frequently misappropriated, and how it relates to the role of AI in the art world, but this comment is long enough.
- Comment on Age Verification Laws Are Multiplying Like a Virus, and Your Linux Computer Might be Next 2 months ago:
The issue still remains that with a check like this, who is to say what content need be age-restricted now lies with the state. They could (and will) restrict content and information that I think my kid should have access to.
Provided the above, I’d say the centralizing of information is the chief concern @SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone.
I don’t know what a satisfying solution looks like here with that considered.
- Comment on Age Verification Laws Are Multiplying Like a Virus, and Your Linux Computer Might be Next 2 months ago:
Yeah, I think you’re arguing with clouds. This person isn’t saying these aren’t effects or even objectives of the age verification effort, but it’s a little silly to say, “No, this isn’t about surveillance, it’s about stifling LGBTQ and atheist progression.” It’s just so tunnel-visioned.
You could’ve even said it’s about centralizing education as a whole and that would’ve been better encompassing. I agree, that’s a bad thing. But it’s absolutely not the full picture.
- Comment on Age Verification Laws Are Multiplying Like a Virus, and Your Linux Computer Might be Next 2 months ago:
The thing is, this shouldn’t really a problem.
I am still against where all this age verification crap is coming from, and I’m against what specifically “age verification” entails; but here’s the thing: We keep saying, “It should be the parent’s responsibility to secure their kids”—and while that’s true, you can do all the talking and educating you want, but the fact is, the internet is now nigh-fully integrated with our lives, and unless you are surveilling your kid at every moment they are on the internet (don’t recommend), not every parent has the time, resources, or know-how to keep their children safe on the internet without help.
So to play naive for a moment and ignore the well-understood reality that “child safety” is an atom-thick veil for mass surveillance: Why did we give up so fast on device parental controls? The OS-level verification actually isn’t so bad of an idea if the implementation valued both safety and privacy. Upon setting up the device, it is the parent’s responsibility to create a password or biometric or whatever to activate/deactivate the safety mode. It should be pretty easy. Are there technically ways for the kid to get around this? Yes, but that’d be breaking the trust. In the same way you’d deal with your kid sneaking out of the house, you deal with that separately. The existence of websites that don’t perform the check is inevitable no matter what you do.
And if you don’t believe your kid needs a safety lock on the internet, then that’s your prerogative.
It’s apparent that parents need better tools, but privacy doesn’t need to be compromised in order to achieve a safer internet. I got lazy while writing this, and I’m sure that’s clear in some spots, but I’m just gonna post it. There’s possibly something huge that I’m overlooking, so I’ll just let someone else point it out.
- Comment on [deleted] 3 months ago:
Can’t even use it with Premium.
Yes, I have YouTube Premium. Family member has it, might as well take advantage of it.
- Comment on Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act verification rules 9 months ago:
Guess who becomes much easier to brainwash and control when the kids of this generation don’t have access to unfederated information and education outlets?
The adults of next generation!
Fuck the new world order.
- Comment on Kagi is announcing an AI Assistant. 1 year ago:
Hot take: the web should not be more human.
And I’m pretty progressive on technological matters. There should still be a clear separation, though.
- Comment on What do you personally use AI for? 2 years ago: