I feel like it’s a do-or-die caveman instinct or something.

I was hanging out with a group of people in my friend’s backyard. We were supposed to have a bonfire, but the wood was wet and wasn’t burning. We used all sorts of fuel, fire starters, etc. I saw what looked like corner of a log turn into ember, so wouldn’t give up. Never got a flame when we were there, of course.

I felt very proud though when my friend sent me door camera footage of the firepit turning into a massive blaze in the middle of night that woke her up.

I like the use of colors for shading on the trees. Oddly satisfying to look at.

What does the scouter say about its sodium level?

It’s over 9,000 mg.

What I mean by adding something of our own is how art, in Cory Doctorow’s words, contain many acts of communicative intent. There are thousands of microdecisions a human makes when creating art. Whereas imagery generated only by the few words of a prompt to an LLM only contain that much communicative intent.

I feel like that’s why AI art always has that AI look and feel to it. I can only sense a tiny fraction of the person’s intent, and maybe it’s because I know the rest is filled in by the AI, but that is the part that feels really hollow or soulless to me.

Even in corporate art, I can at least sense what the artist was going for, based on corporate decisions to use clean, inoffensive designs for their branding and image. There’s a lot of communicative intent behind those designs.

I recommend checking the blog post I referenced, because Cory Doctorow expresses these thoughts far more eloquently than I do.

As for the latter argument, I wanted to highlight the fact that AI needs that level of resources and training data in order to produce art, whereas a human doesn’t, which shows you the power of creativity, human creativity. That’s why I think what AI does cannot be called ‘creativity.’ It cannot create. It does what we tell it to, without its own intent.

My comment is replying to the guy talking about whether or not you can call AI ‘creative’ though.

You’re forgetting the fact that humans always add something of our own when we make art, even when we try to reproduce another’s artpiece as a study.

The many artists we might’ve looked at certainly influence our own styles, but they’re not the only thing that’s expressed in our artwork. Our life lived to that point, and how we’re feeling in the moment, those are also the things, often the point, that artists communicate when making art.

Most artists haven’t also looked at nearly every single work by almost every artist spanning a whole century of time. We also don’t need whole-ass data centers that need towns’ worth of water supply to just train to produce some knock-off, soulless amalgamation of other people’s art.

Look at what they need to mimic a fraction of our power.

A wise friend once said, “the best boobs are the ones you can touch.”

Superman himself was a refugee too, undocumented even, brought to Earth as a child because his parents wanted him to escape the fate of their home.

I get it, because we want to do the opposite of what RFK Jr wants the majority of the time.

I really appreciate that these types of collectors of random appliances exist whenever I need to buy something and want to read real opinions written by people instead of the garbage sponsored recommendation list articles that seemed to pollute the search results (even before the LLMs appeared) that forced everyone to start appending ‘reddit’ to their Google queries.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t address the symptoms in addition to the source.

I don’t play chess, like maybe once every few years at most, so I know nothing about the patterns. But I noticed that pros usually made moves that put their opponent in an equal or worse predicament than their own.

A friend who regularly played speed chess played against me, without time limit of course because that would’ve been a stomp. I used the simple principle I figured out above and was winning for most of the game.

I basically depth-first searched every single move (the game lasted nearly three hours though).

I only lost at the end because I got tired and stopped doing the exhausting search in my mind.

Sharpie enough to control hurricanes.

In that scenario, I agree the pragmatic choice is to save the majority.

But many situations tend to be complex and aren’t as clear as a trolley problem, so I want to avoid falling into the trap of seeing a false dilemma when there’s possibly more than two options.

Those are already arguments for why NASA and space programs shouldn’t exist in the first place.

I remember watching something about the space race, and there was a clip of public opinion during the time of the first mission to the moon, where a man complained that the money should’ve been used to improve the lives of poor Americans instead.

Regardless, for the scenario in The Martian, if money is already being spent and going to continue being spent on space missions in the future, I think you can rationalize it as using money for another or next space mission. They would still gain knowledge from what they had to do to pull off that rescue, so it’s not a complete waste of funds for a mission either.

On the morality point, I’d argue that we should spend the money to rescue any person if we have the money/means, and it can feasibly happen without excessive risk to other lives, otherwise we’re assigning monetary value to human lives. That includes both people in imminent danger, requiring expensive emergency services, and people suffering slower, persistent risks like hunger that require sustained support.

Well, coincidentally, the very first Technology Connections video I watched was an hour-long one about dishwashers (yes, lol). And it was actually shared to me through Discord.

The dishwasher is actually better than what most people think, but a lot of them don’t know that they’re using it wrong.

I genuinely wanted to understand more about that supposed contradiction, but frankly, that article was one of the worst, most tedious, painful articles I’ve ever tried to read. It was vague, repetitive, and reeks of AI-generated slop.

They should program a timer set to the tune of a nice, friendly song that will gently remind them to exit the circle in time.

Mark Waters says sales at his Odessa, Texas, tools business, which he describes as a “Home Depot for the oilfields,” are down about 10 percent. He does not regret voting for Trump, saying he is willing to take a personal hit to support the president’s agenda. But he said it is ironic that over the decades he has made a lot more money when the party he despises is in power. “The oil business has thrived under Democratic leadership despite them being true haters of all things fossil,” Waters said. “For whatever reason, I made millions of dollars under Clinton. Then I made even more under Obama and Biden. I have never had a solid explanation.” His business outlook for the coming months under Trump? “Hopefully it won’t be catastrophic,” Waters said.

Almost some self-awareness there. Almost.