erin

S'what I said

I'm not arguing with your statements, I'm arguing against the content therein. Also, it's not a productive comment to tell people discussing the ethical benefits of a reform to human euthanasia by saying the obvious, which is that it isn't yet legal.

And for the record, I didn't downvote you. That information is public. The flag of Israel probably isn't helping in that regard on Lemmy.

The Jungle was a book exposing the nightmares of the industrial revolution, especially in the meat packing industry.

Atlas Shrugged is the conservative wet dream of "what if the rich people that totally do all the work and hold everything together got tired of the poors being so whiny and ungrateful and stopped." It's an-cap fan fiction.

Way to entirely miss the point. Are you suggesting that the simplest form of an artform isn't part of it? Apply that to literally every other artform. By your logic, jamming on basic chords on a ukulele in my living room isn't music, and a kids stick figure drawing of their family isn't art. You're so concerned about being "correct" that you missed being right. Go back and actually read my comment for its meaning, not the pedantry. If this is how you engage with media, I understand why you would compare AI art and photography.

Photography has far more depth, complexity, and creativity as an artform and comparing it to AI both misunderstands the process and does it a huge disservice. Even before lining up the shot, the photographer must choose the right focus length, exposure, and a number of other technical settings, then must choose a subject, perhaps modify the composition, and have the right timing.

Photography can be as simple as pointing a phone camera for a well timed moment or snapping a once in a lifetime shot with an expensive lens. AI art takes orders of magnitude less creativity or training to do well, because it's stealing the work of people that have already learned the composition techniques and have done the legwork, which is just being shoddily regurgitated by the plagiarism machine.

There is a difference between studying techniques, ideology, history, and mediums to be able to use a style created by another artist in your own creative works, and putting all the creative end products into the ideas blender and churning out a product with no creativity and no intentionality to the application of the process. What's the end game? At what point does human creativity become redundant and AI starts eating its own slop? Do human artists need to keep creating depictions of meaning or value or whatever else they find important to endlessly feed into the machine so it can duplicate them, missing any of the metaphor, subtext, and soul present in the original? At what point is it obvious that workers are having their labor stolen by the tech bro Soylent Green idea machine to enrich them at the expense of whoever's life work they seemed to be slop worthy of regurgitation.

AI can be an excellent shortcut or a great tool, and help us make our work easier and products better, but it is not a creator of original creative works, and cannot be validated at the same level as human artists. I, for one, would like to see a future where artists don't just exist to feed into their machine betters.

You're so very wrong about that. The chemicals used right now for lethal injection fail often, cause undue pain and distress, and often will paralyze you instead of killing you quickly while you slowly suffocate, unable to call for help. Nitrogen has no downsides. This isn't a "techbro" solution. It's a humane one. A guillotine was kinder to the one dying than the current method.

The current method prioritizes minimizing violence and maximizing comfort for spectators over being humane to the one dying. The only reason there is a paralytic in the chemical slurry is because the sleep and lethal chemicals sometimes fail spectacularly and the patient spasms painfully as they die. Their solution wasn't to change the method to be more humane, it was to paralyze them so they don't spasm. They're still in pain. They're still dying slowly. They're still scared. But we don't have to see it, so it's okay.

Nitrogen euthanasia is safe and humane, killing entirely painlessly. For some reason the fact that it's a gas, even an inert one, makes people crazy.

The laws are clearly outdated. Drugs for lethal injection frequently fail and cause much more pain and distress. Nitrogen has *no downsides." It's like the fact that it's a gas makes people crazy.

Regardless, she's acclaimed and talented. Her performance was excellent. Her previous performances have been excellent. If all the hypothetical naysayers have to go on is career length, it seems like a very weak motive for selective hatred.

I feel like characterizing Halle Bailey as "just some chick" is disingenuous at best.

We have more than enough resources for more than the world's population. The problem isn't overpopulation, it's manufactured scarcity. Telling people to just have less kids is victim blaming when capitalism requires letting some people starve to maintain the artificial value of products.