wirehead

We, the people who all roughly simultaneously chose the same name at roughly the same time only to engage in endless wars over who gets it on a new site, actually exist in a diverse multi-gendered animal-loving book-reading population, of which I am only one example, merely the member of our tribe who happened to nab it here. I've actually talked with other Wireheads and the similarities are interesting.

All I know is that it somehow appeared in my brain before I read the Niven book that introduced it to me. And, also, at this point in history, I find Niven and many people who operated in his orbit deeply disgusting and disturbing examples of humanity, so it's good that I came up with it on my own.

The web is the way it is because TBL put out a feeler and looked at the sorts of things people were playing with around him and managed to assemble enough of them into the solid core that everybody else glommed stuff onto, and then was able to serve as a reasonable steward for enough of it for a long enough time period that it solidified into something reasonable useful.

But not perfect. [shrugs in fediverse]

Part of why it's not perfect is because TBL was an academic person of privilege and so he's never had to actually viscerally feel the sorts of struggle that most of the world feels. And he's spent the past 35 years being fawned over.

For whatever reason, TBL has smacked face-first into "linked data" formerly known as RDF repeatedly for decades now. I mostly understand what's going on there and it kinda makes sense and I've even written some code that uses linked data and I've been generally following along as it goes.

There was RDF and a version of RSS that was based on it, but then a more approachable thing ended up actually being the real RSS and instead of RDF-styled tagging, the formerly influential startup Technorati and the still vaguely popular photo site Flickr got everybody tagging because that was something people could grasp.

If you think back to the dream of a "What would a Semantic Google look like" that folks were going on about a bunch of years ago and fast-forward to today with all of the AI-generated search result abuses and whatnot, you realize that if they had succeeded at it, the web might actually been a worse place.

These days, ActivityPub is actually a proper constrained system that fits into the RDF thing that TBL has been face-smaking into. It's actually got arcs in ways that Technorati/Flickr/et al tags don't. So I guess we can call this progress, but I don't know what percentage of people, even folks who care deeply about the Fediverse, actually grok the complete concept. Either way, the fediverse has pushed forward the "linked data" dream more than anything TBL has done. And part of this is that the successful fediverse apps have been grounded in being practical forward steps for people looking to jump off of a train moving in the wrong direction.

So, dono, I guess you could see a Fediverse refactor such that the data, which is already linked data anyways, ends up getting stored using Solid mechanisms with a decentralized concept of identity and Pods, et al. And if they were actually practical people, showing up with patches would be a great way to get people onboarded because there's at least a few things there that might be useful.

But, in the end, it's not that they are failing at being practical people who can deliver a useful solution, it's that I don't think they can really conceive of the important bits well enough to spend a lot of energy thinking they are making a better world when they are actually paving the way to make it even worse than had they sat around having fancy cocktails and bemoaning the state of the world and not tried to make Solid happen.

Well, the photo in question is: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cyberspace/53570370332/

Funny, just this morning I woke up to someone commenting on one of my pieces of art that I'd posted on Reddit that if I hadn't put in the comment how I did it, they'd have thought it was an AI generated picture.

It's super-painful to be a technologist and an artist at the same time right now because there are way too many people in tech who have no understanding of what it means to create art. There's people in the art community who don't really get AI either, of course, but since they are trending towards probably the right opinion based on an incomplete understanding of what the things we see as AI actually are, it's much easier to listen to them. If anything, the artists can labor under the misapprehension that the current crop of AI tools are doing more than they actually are.

In the golden age of analog photography, people would do a print and include the raw borders of the image. So you'd see sprocket holes if it's 35mm film or a variety of rough boundaries for other film formats. And it was a known artistic convention that you were showing exactly what you shot, no cropping, no edits, etc. The early first version of Instagram decided that those film borders meant "art" so of course they added the fake film borders and it grated on my nerves because I think it was the edges from a roll of Velvia, which is a brilliant color slide film. And then someone would have the photo with the B&W filter because that also means "art" but you would never see a B&W Velvia shot unless you were working really hard on a thing. So this is far from the first time that a bunch of clueless people on the tech side of the fence did something silly out of ego and ignorance.

The picture I posted is the result of a bunch of work on fabbing, 3D printing, FastLED programming, photographic technique, providing an interesting concept to a person and an existing body of work such that said person would want to show up to some random eccentric's place for a shoot, et al. And, well... captions on art exist for a reason, right? It adds layers to the work to know that the artist was half-mad when they painted it and maybe you can tell by the painting's brushwork or just know your art history really well but maybe you can't and so a caption helps create context for people not skilled in that particular art.

And, there's not really "secrets" in art. Lots of curators and art critics will take great pains to explain why Jackson Pollock or Mark Rothko so if you are still wandering around saying "BUT IT LOOKS LIKE GIANT SQUARES" that's intentional ignorance.

Now, I've been exploring my particular weird genre of art for a while now. Before AI, Photoshop was the thing. Much in the same way as I could have thrown a long enough prompt into a spicy-autocomplete image generator, I also could have probably photoshopped it. Then again, the tutorials for the Photoshop version of the technique all refer back to the actual photographic effect.

Describing something as it's not has long been a violation of social norms that people who are stuck in a world of intentional ignorance, ego, and disrespect for the artistic process have engaged in. In the simultaneous heyday of Second Life and Flickr, people wanting to treat their Second Life as their primary life caused Flickr to create features so people could mediate this boundary. So, on one level, this isn't entirely new and posting AI art in the painting reddit is no different from posting filtered Second Life to the portrait group on flickr. It's simple rudeness of the sort that the unglamorous aspects of community moderation are there to solve for.

I have gotten quizzed about how I make my art, but I've never seen anybody go off and then create a replica of my art, they've always gone off and created something new and novel and interesting and you might not even realize that what got them there was tricks I shared with them it's so different. Artists don't see other art in the gallery and autocomplete art that looks like what they saw, they incorporate ideas into their own work with their own flair.

Thus, there's more going on than just mere rudeness. I've been doing this for a long time now and the AI companies have a habit of misrepresenting exactly what content they have stolen to train their image models. So it's entirely likely that the cool AI picture that someone thinks my art looks like is really just autocompleted using parts of my art. Except I can't say "no" and if there was a market for people making art that looks roughly like mine, I'd offer paid workshops or something.

Cool, I'm building up a Voron Zero although I will get started on a Trident after I'm done with the Zero probably.

Yah, I have to say that the appeal of a unique car, plus the appeal of the "FEATURE" license plate that was almost certainly already taken, and the possibility of eliciting violence all makes me sad that I've never owned one.

I feel like your two line description bear-ly scratches the surface of possibilities here.

A WipeoutXL-esque hover racing game, maybe with open-world-racing-game vibes, with the deep technological complexity of a flight simulator like X-Plane.

I spent a bit of time in college tooling around with it, actually, even though it turns out that years later I'm really glad I didn't end up in the game development industry.

Way I figure it, it would require you to think about systems-level issues. It's a Formula-One styled thing so if you end up exceeding the altitude limit in competition, ten second penalty to your time. Do you want to use a lifting-body styled groundplane? Or lift-fans, knowing that that comes out of your power budget but will do a better job of keeping you away from the altitude limit, less susceptible to other people's wing vorticies, and avoid needing sturdy wheels? Etc.

As open world games have gotten more open world and popular these days, I suspect that the difference between then and now is that it might be funner with tune codes a la Forza Horizon so that you could play it without being quite as much of an expert. And maybe a lot of the more complicated mechanisms might actually be a little less intrusive when you can spend a bunch of time tooling around the landscape running into trees without the strain of competition before you actually get going.

There's a lot of flight simulator players and frankly part of the joy seems to be that, when it is really really complicated and accurate, you are learning skills that might be useless-ish but there's still that joy of learning and also of playing around with a large dangerous object that could kill a lot of people and not being worried about that when you flip an airliner upside down. And/or the "I could be an airliner/stunt pilot if the FAA wasn't so damn restrictive on the medical" vibes.

Well played.