So you don’t want to go against the jerk, okay.

Thanks?

Agreed. The point being that people aren’t really upset about whether it’s art or not. They’re mad about money.

And that’s not exactly dumb either, making bread is important. It’d just be nice if it was admitted to.

AI being appropriated for neural nets which might even do things unrelated to what we think of as intelligence is annoying, I’ll give you that.

What art is is kind of a huge can of worms, though. In any case, it’s pretty clear they can satisfy potential clients a lot better than human digital artists, and that’s where at least part of the butthurt comes from.

It was, but doesn’t that seem shortsighted now? When there’s a change it’s usually bad for someone, but no change since the 1700’s would definitely be bad, even if there’s a steady two pence or whatever to be made weaving.

Sitting in 2025, we can identify a whole lot that was wrong with the world and conditions of labourers (including literal slaves) then. It seems kind of odd to blame technology for them, at least directly. But, that’s where the luddites turned their anger, and Lemmy seems to slide into doing the same thing - although there’s a lot of overlap with valid skepticism about things people claim AI do, that it actually can’t.

If we did what they wanted, I couldn’t afford the clothes I’m wearing. Or probably a lot of other things - shit tons has improved since the late 1700’s.

Sure, there’s less weaver jobs now, and there will be less digital artist jobs in the future. Arguably, the past few centuries have shown that if there’s other things that we can do instead, it’s still for the best. (If there’s not, a whole new conversation opens up)

Yes, it’s not a good argument totally unsupported. You can live in a society and still criticise it, if there’s no reasonable choice to do otherwise.

The thing is, I really like not having to weave my own clothes, or do whatever trade was made obsolete by all the technologies since. I’m guessing OP does too, and there’s no good reason to place a cutoff on that at 2020.

If OP thought things would genuinely be better if we went back to medieval tech, this would be a different, and actually much more interesting conversation. As it is, they just didn’t know the history.

No. The luddites were against the move away from manual weaving, and literally did break into factories to smash looms.

This person on the internet in hemp rags they grew themselves.

Because Lemmy is full smash-the-looms luddite about AI art.

Oh? What else have they said? I didn’t know there was a reputation for fibbing.

Yeah, but they were talking about building out WhatsApp third party compatibility on top of it.

There already was Element One, which bridged to a bunch of things for a small subscription fee, although it had to break E2EE to do so. I’m just finding a lot of broken links now, though.

Wow, I’m surprised they got it up that high in a practical application.

They let OpenWhisper do the underlying protocol, so it’s solid. Beats the shit out of a plain text message anyway, and people IRL might actually have it.

Wasn’t Element going to integrate into it as well?

There are people who can do this, I’ve known some. It’s probably genetic, and some people vary in the other direction.

Okay, now I’m really curious. What do they say?

Channeling what therapists have said to me a bit: it’s not what happens that causes feelings, so much as what you think about what happens.

Maybe you’re looking at things is a winner-takes-all way here? Like, if you’re not better than them in every way, they win. It’s not actually like that, of course. There’s billions of people on Earth, and you should be the best version of yourself you can be regardless of what everyone else is doing. Changing other people is nearly impossible (another thing therapists like to bring up) while improving your skill is not, and the two are very separate here.

IRL, that I’m left-wing and atheist, because it’s a loyally right-wing area, and because the latter thing pisses off an important minority. I also avoid anything that could be seen as “playing a card”, although in the right conditions I might bring whatever personal consideration up. The only way I’m admitting the first two is if either they did first, or I’m asked point blank.

Yep. Same vibe as old legends about the glory of battle. The tropes exist because the most powerful people are trying to motivate cannon fodder. Edit: Or justify their own position - either as a brave, chivalrous lord or a hard-working, street smart CEO.

You see the personal impact of success in whatever environment you’re in exaggerated for similar reasons. For example, good grades are worth something, and doing either really badly or better than average has consequences, but there’s diminishing returns on very high or low levels beyond that. From what I’ve seen in my life, nepotism, luck and schmoozing skills are all worth substantially more than crazy high grades. (And having the right temperament to actually build on what you earn - that one’s underrated)