spujb
@spujb@lemmy.cafe
- Comment on Why do AI bros and other staunch AI defenders seem happy about the potential of killing off the creative industries? 3 weeks ago:
There’s nothing wrong with opposing technology as it currently stands. Maybe there’s room for nuance in language, but that doesn’t break their argument.
As it currently stands, the user above is right, and the labor of human artists is being siphoned into corporate profit with zero compensation. In the same way, at the beginning of the industrial revolution the labor of children was siphoned into profit with zero compensation and deadly work conditions.
The way the textile industry was “fixed” was by opposition: speaking about the issues related to the technical developments and advocating for better treatment of the laborers. The only way AI as it currently stands can be “fixed” is also by opposition. Being critical of AI doesn’t mean “turn it off,” it means speaking about the issues related to the new technology and advocating for better treatment of the laborers.
- Comment on Why do AI bros and other staunch AI defenders seem happy about the potential of killing off the creative industries? 3 weeks ago:
Enabling millions of people to jump traditional entry barriers is a good thing
False :( look how bad Google search has gotten, overrun by AI blogposts and advertising slop. Enabling millions of people to jump traditional entry barriers dilutes the hard, real, work that people do.
But more to the point, the genie is out of the bottle, and no amount of objection is going to stuff it back in.
We regulated the assembly line and gave laborers compensation and safety rights when power tools increased their capacity. So too, we could force OpenAI et al to compensate the copyright holders from whom they scraped data. No one is calling for the genie to got back in, only for the capitalists to stop being the ones with all the wishes.
- Comment on Why do AI bros and other staunch AI defenders seem happy about the potential of killing off the creative industries? 3 weeks ago:
It’s because AI enthusiasts genuinely proud and in awe of their work, and those that are still staunchly pro-AI are unaware of how much damage they have already done.
Two key facts:
- Generative AI is powerful and amazing
- Generative AI was immediately sold to the capital-owning class and is now being developed and guided by the motivations of profit
Freya Holmér does excellent analysis at around the 43:00 mark. She notes that AI represents a story of human triumph, and the innate quality or “coolness” that lies in that. But on the other hand, she explains how generative AI has quite quickly become entirely devorced from positively amplifying human expression. Exceptions to this exist, where people use AI creatively as an extension of themselves exist, but are exceptions only and not the rule.
I see other threads here discussing “is there even demand for authentic human art?” And those discussions ignore that yes, there is, and that authentic human art was scraped from copyright holders on the internet without their consent. “Is there even demand for human art?” is what is being asked, when the technology in question was immediately bought up and exploited by billion-dollar companies who are gaining immensely more value from generative AI than even the most lucrative AI-artist.
I encourage “AI bros” reading this to look around and engage with the art world. Genuinely. If you have always wanted to be a screenwriter or painter hobbyist, go engage with those stories. Go and see the human experiences, training and techniques that are visible in every line and brush stroke. Creativity is quite a wonderful and powerful thing and I always encourage it.
Then, after you have experienced these works to a new degree, look back. Don’t even ask “is AI good”—because we all agree, it’s an amazing feat. Instead ask “do I want this technology to be monopolized by corporate interests?”
- Comment on [deleted] 3 weeks ago:
OP is a caught liar /srs
- Comment on [deleted] 3 weeks ago:
no hate but i don’t believe you. i came to the comments to say exactly what @FundMECFS@slrpnk.net said. returns 70% ai on quillbot.com along with my own personal experience that no human uses “resonating” “add depth” “playful nod” “spark discussions” as much as I have seen ChatGPT use those phrases. other patterns include stringing together nouns in ways that sound smart but don’t add value, eg “surveillance and governance” “social justice… and global inequality”
…it’s okay to use ai? but no need to lie about it. goodness knows the internet is already too full of people lying about ai produced content, don’t join them lol
- Comment on Apple CEO Tim Cook Donating $1 Million to Trump's Inaugural Fund 3 weeks ago:
you’re thinking of FECA probably. inauguration vs campaign funds are different things, and Citizens United was about campaign funds.
- Comment on I still don’t think companies serve you ads based on spying through your microphone 3 weeks ago:
yeah it does
- Comment on I never realized this 3 weeks ago:
i support!
- Comment on Go into debt if you have to 3 weeks ago:
but surely they test it for that?
- Comment on Go into debt if you have to 3 weeks ago:
well this kind is not meant to do that
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
none of us would judge you @Rooty@lemmy.world if you picked up and perused this free copy of Feminism is for Everybody by bell hooks right now. in fact that would be really cool.
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
ohh that might explain some of the other downvotes too lol
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
That is what I am quoting De Beauvoir and Engles as saying, yes.
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
my comment was about @rooty who said “Patriarchy as defined by feminists is a nebulous and unfalsifiable concept” not you or anyone else. because of course, people who actually read any wave or subsect of feminism will immediately find feminists have a whole host of concrete and evidenced conceptions of the term patriarchy.
i was seeking to laugh at @rooty who has clearly never done any work to listen to any feminist and gets all their undestanding of it from straw man memes.
it seems people like yourself are misunderstanding my language to mean the opposite, sorry for any confusion.
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
!lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world in particular has a weird propensity to anti-feminism that i don’t see elsewhere. i’ll get about 60% downvotes on this comment just as everywhere else in this thread just for saying so lol
something about the old school “relax librul it’s called dark humor” mindset is specially present here
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
you take a conservative (lowercase c) approach to the concept more than i do, and that’s fine.
but from a holistic perspective, the very fact that we have this conversation proves my position. the symbols stand for something. they promote dialogue and awareness of patriarchal repression by subverting it. little girls can look to the woman who takes her own name and derive conviction of self worth and autonomy.
none of this means that taking one’s name is the ultimate be-all feminist act, but i just take issue with your characterization of it being “dumb performative.” i encourage you, as a self-proclaimed feminist, to reconsider heaping that kind of abuse onto people just extending their reach to where generations before was impossible. at worst you appear to be recentering patriarchal narratives, at best you’re being mean.
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
this lol. i would not be in this comment section if OP wasn’t obviously taking the side of homelader here. if there was ever satire in the post it was lost as soon as OP got their hands on it.
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
she is achieving and asserting herself, a right that is denied to her on most every other level.
names are symbols. taking ownership of your name may not be material, but it is meaningful. if names were meaningless, trans people wouldn’t change their names, African-American communities wouldn’t change their names, et cetera. but they do, and feminists do, because achieving oneself, having domain over oneself even to the extent of identity, is meaningful especially against a history where that right is restricted against you in favor of the dominant class.
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
yep and it’s good that opinion stays unpopular
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
came here to make this exact comment, was delighted it already exists XD
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
In The Second Sex, De Beauvoir quotes Engels as he argues that patriarchy (as we know it today) likely arose with the advent of private property. So there is some relation to capitalism (of which private property is a core component), but it goes back way further than the Black Plague and marking it down to “trade promotion” is over-simplistic at best in that it’s wayyyy worse than that.
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
love it :)
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
the patriarchy doesn’t benefit the male. in fact, most men are overall harmed by the forces of patriarchy.
the goal of patriarchy is to subjugate and repress an “other,” that is, women. it’s true that patriarchy gives privelege to men, but equating privilege and benefit is to misunderstand the core components of the system.
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
This is true, but who decided that a woman keeping her maiden name is just using her father’s name? That idea comes from patriarchy. If I inherit something at birth, like a rare coin, it’s mine, whether it came from my mom or dad. The same goes for a woman’s name—it’s hers because she’s had it since birth. Suggesting she doesn’t own it, and must create a new name to escape, reinforces the idea that only patrilineal identity matters and undermines her autonomy in making that choice.
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
appreciate your insight! i fully agree with everything except perhaps:
You’re not doing anything wrong by not confirming to that standard.
still a correct statement on its own, but needs the clarification that it’s not chill to mock or hamper the efforts of that “Othered” community to subvert or reclaim their repression. while it’s certainly not wrong for a woman to conform to the patrilineal system, it’s not chill to “gotcha”-laugh at this woman for using the same name she and her mother have owned their whole lives.
it’s a very Rush Limbaugh-esque “you claim to he a feminist, yet you live under the forces and histories of the patriarchy, curious 🧐” joke, in that it’s not wrong, it’s just intensely and obviously comes from a place of ignorant disrespect.
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
…yeah? exactly what i said? i don’t disagree at all except you possibly ignore that the butt of the joke is the woman, normalizing the very repression she attempts to subvert. it’s undermining and mocking the woman’s identity intentionally by asserting the dominance of patriarchal schemes over her own life and decision. (perhaps unintentionally, but nevertheless really.)
in America, historically Black names are also historically dominated by historical slavery and white supremacy (different functions, but the end result of subjugation is parallel). i would post a similar comment hating on a post mocking Black folk for resisting these patterns as well! :)
- Comment on New social experiment 4 weeks ago:
New Document 2.odtx
- Comment on New social experiment 4 weeks ago:
\Program Files (x86)\
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
that’s right, promoting your trade is capitalism folks
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
with no ill will for you, OP, genuinely fuck this boomer ass “joke”
a woman’s name is her name. she lives with it for 1 lifetime, absolutely no longer than her grandfather does. “male” is not somehow the default human identity. stop trying to enforce that standard.