rich_27's recent activity
-
Comment on TV Tuesdays Free Talk in ~tv
-
Comment on What are the top five software apps you benefit the most from? in ~tech
rich_27 Link ParentDo you find you still use Notepad++? Since I got VSCode I don't think I opened Notepad++!Do you find you still use Notepad++? Since I got VSCode I don't think I opened Notepad++!
-
Comment on What are the top five software apps you benefit the most from? in ~tech
rich_27 Link ParentBitwarden is fantastic. I moved over from LastPass a couple of years ago and couldn't be happierBitwarden is fantastic. I moved over from LastPass a couple of years ago and couldn't be happier
-
Comment on What are the top five software apps you benefit the most from? in ~tech
rich_27 Link ParentI use it for image editing and stuff (mainly cutting stuff out for emojis or shitty memes with my friends). It's definitely weird at times - the UI is tricky for that kind of stuff cause it's...I use it for image editing and stuff (mainly cutting stuff out for emojis or shitty memes with my friends). It's definitely weird at times - the UI is tricky for that kind of stuff cause it's definitely not built for it - but it does the job just fine. I got fed up with Paint.NET and was looking for an alternative I could easily get through WPM; I don't remember if I looked for GIMP, Ibguess I'd probably forgotten about it
-
Comment on Artosis, esports casting godfather, moves on in ~games
-
Comment on Recommend chill/background games for my second monitor? in ~games
rich_27 LinkΔV: Rings of Saturn is a great game that might scratch the itch. You pilot a mining ship going into the rings of Saturn to find ore. You can only go out for so long before filling up and needing...ΔV: Rings of Saturn is a great game that might scratch the itch. You pilot a mining ship going into the rings of Saturn to find ore. You can only go out for so long before filling up and needing to go back. It's pretty manual to begin with, but once you get enough cash for some decent autopilot and guidance computers, you don't need to pay too much attention whilst flying. Might work out nicely!
-
Comment on Defective altruism - the repugnant philosophy of “Effective Altruism” offers nothing to movements for global justice in ~humanities
rich_27 Link ParentI think often people find value in philosophy not because they are looking to it for concrete, specific advice, but because reading about someone's generalised perspective can allow you to think...I think often people find value in philosophy not because they are looking to it for concrete, specific advice, but because reading about someone's generalised perspective can allow you to think about your personal, specific situation from another perspective.
Philosophy doesn't necessarily have to have any answers; posing questions can be enough to help the reader reframe their life and specific situations for themselves.
-
Comment on Defective altruism - the repugnant philosophy of “Effective Altruism” offers nothing to movements for global justice in ~humanities
rich_27 (edited )Link ParentI skimmed the first paragraphs of each of the following sections to get a rough idea of what they contained; I must have missed that. My rational for reading-, and then writing-, as much as I did...I skimmed the first paragraphs of each of the following sections to get a rough idea of what they contained; I must have missed that.
My rational for reading-, and then writing-, as much as I did was because I did not find continuing to read what felt like unsubstantiated opinion presented as fact particularly appealing, but - having read the other comments here - it felt important to point out the issue I saw with the article that others reading may not pick up on.
If there are other sections that do evaluate utilitarianism as well as just EA for its utilitarianism, I'd be interested to read those. Would you be able to point me to which section I should look at?
-
Comment on Defective altruism - the repugnant philosophy of “Effective Altruism” offers nothing to movements for global justice in ~humanities
rich_27 LinkThat was a very long article; I only managed to make it to the first break point. Whilst I can't comment on the remainder of the article, the first section reads as a very emotional argument...That was a very long article; I only managed to make it to the first break point. Whilst I can't comment on the remainder of the article, the first section reads as a very emotional argument against Effective Altruism based on an assumed position that utilitarianism is wrong/morally reprehensible. I found the opening paragraph, especially, to be pretty sensationalist - with the author seemingly inferring that people claiming to have found a better way to do good inherently criticises those not part of that way - which may well have coloured my opinion of the rest of the article.
I think an article like this should first establish their base position and rational for it (utilitarianism is bad, in this case) before analysing a subject through that lens, because otherwise you run the risk of presenting that position as fact that the reader 'should' agree with. Unless the reader is actively thinking about the underpinning assumptions as well as the conclusions presented, they might find themselves adopting that base standpoint without ever questioning it; to me, it feels like arguing in bad faith.
As someone who developed a pretty utilitarian view without reading much on the subject, I found I disagreed with quite a few of the things things the author stated without exploring or supporting:
The EA community is rife with arguments in defense of things that conflict with our basic moral intuitions
I didn't find anything the author presented thus far conflicted with my basic moral intuitions.
This is because it is heavily influenced by utilitarianism, which always leads to endless numbers of horrifying conclusions until you temper it with non-utilitarian perspectives
The phrase "which always leads to" is a very sweeping unsubstantiated generalisation. The author then takes this opinion-presented-as-fact as a firm foundation from which to continue:
Patching up utilitarianism with a bunch of moral nonnegotiables is what everyone ends up having to do unless they want to sound like a maniac
In addition to the foregone conclusion the first part depends on, the author also frames rationalising morality as mania.
Neuroscientist Erik Hoel, in an essay that completely devastates the philosophical underpinnings of Effective Altruism, [...]
Again, whether or not the essay devastates the philosophical underpinnings is a conclusion that should probably be left to the reader to draw.
its proponents face two unpalatable options: get rid of the attempt to pursue the Quantitatively Maximum Human Good, [...], or keep it and embrace the horrible repugnant conclusions of utilitarian philosophy that no sane person can accept.
The author continues to present utilitarianism as a cancer to be excised. I don't think the utilitarianism was established to be either horrible or repugnant, nor be a philosophy that only the sane can accept.
The article continues in the same vein, which I will not expand on further, except to highlight the delightful irony in the author's supposition that "the movement’s intellectual core is so poisoned by bad philosophy as to be unsalvageable"!
I should, however, add that I did enjoy the read. It was interesting to learn about a topic I had not come across before (Effective Altruism), and it certainly made me think - thanks for sharing!
-
Comment on Why do new cars look like this? (Gray and without any flake, as if formed out of dough) in ~transport
rich_27 Link ParentIt was a super interesting read and something I knew nothing about before, thanks for sharing!It was a super interesting read and something I knew nothing about before, thanks for sharing!
-
Comment on The value of artistic legacy in ~talk
rich_27 Link ParentMy pleasure, thanks for your post! Sorry I've taken a while to reply on this, I've had a busy few days! I appreciate your insight; I think it's really interesting to examine places where our...My pleasure, thanks for your post! Sorry I've taken a while to reply on this, I've had a busy few days!
I appreciate your insight; I think it's really interesting to examine places where our personal beliefs differ and exploring another's point of view. For the most part, I think I understand where you're coming from and respect your opinion, even if it differs from my own, though there are a few points you made that I'd be interested in exploring further:
When something with the title "Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey" is released to the world we immediately associate it with the original work involuntarily, there's no concious process for us to switch off that mental association
I find this really interesting, because I have the same instinctive connection of the two works, but not the same instinctive attribution. When I see Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey, it - of course - makes me think of Winnie the Pooh, but I think that at the same time instinctively feels separate and distinct to me, because it is such a dissonant feel from that of Winnie the Pooh.
The comparison to the Eragon/Artemis Fowl/Percy Jackson movie adaptations doesn't make a lot of sense to me honestly, they may well have been crappy adaptations (subjectively speaking!) but they were well-intentioned attempts at something faithful to the spirit of the original writing - they just missed the mark and that's perfectly forgiveable
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. It was an imperfect comparison; I think I was coming at it more from a "they did damage to the brand" independent of intent, rather than a comparison as a whole. I think I was more intending to highlight that if the owners of the original work had been able to forsee the finished product and the reception to it, they would have likely not have chosen to authorise it. With the Winnie the Pooh film, it could end up almost the opposite: whilst Milne might have been appaulled by the concept and would never have authorised it if he still controlled the original work, it could turn out to be a loving homage to the characters told through the lens of a different genre, which could be something that builds adds to Winnie the Pooh as a whole, rather than sullying it. Even if that is unlikely, I think my point was more that we can't predict the outcome of a work, and that in general good does more good than bad does bad, if that makes sense.
something that anyone with common sense can recognise is polar opposite to the values expressed in Milne's work and more so intended to shock & offend than tell a story
I think you bring up a really interesting point here, because this is actually one of the main reasons I think people should be able to make movies like this. Precisely because anyone with common sense is able to recognise it as such, I think there should be little danger of it sullying Milne and Winnie the Pooh as a result. I think I would have more of a problem if someone created a Winnie the Pooh story where it had the same vibe and values as Winnie the Pooh, but during the episode one of the characters murdered another in cold blood and all the characters proceeded to treat it as a minor mistake that could be brushed under the rug. I think that would have the potential to damage Winnie the Pooh and Milne's legacy, far more than a slasher film, if that makes sense.
I think the question of how much we should reasonably expect people to be able to separate art from artist is a really interesting question, as is the one of how we should balance protecting the legacy and reputation of an artist vs letting people have creative freedom.
-
Comment on What’s something you’ve been mulling over recently? in ~talk
rich_27 Link ParentIt's been super hot in the UK this summer too, and for longer stretches than I remember before. What used to be long weekends of heat turned into weeks and fortnights this year. I think it is a...It's been super hot in the UK this summer too, and for longer stretches than I remember before. What used to be long weekends of heat turned into weeks and fortnights this year.
I think it is a dire path we're currently on, but I think change will only come when industry feels its impact. As far as I'm aware, consumer use and emissions is orders of magnitude smaller than that of industry, and industry has one motivator, almost across the board. I think we'll see real change once the impact really starts to affect the bottom line. Once the effect of carbon emissions really hurt the shareholder's dividends, then industry will have a motivation to change that I just can't see happening any other way; it feels like even legislation won't be able to solve the problem, because we no longer have any governing body with a broad enough scope to actually place restrictions on how multinationals do business, and I just can't see a global agreement to restrict them.
I know I'm falling into exactly the trap you described, and I may well be ignorant to how much effect the individual can have; I guess it feels like even if everyone lived like you all it would be doing would be kicking the can a small bit down the road.
One thing that I often come back to, though, is why exist? Why live at all? We are life, and with life comes meaning. Sure, it might be our base instinct to consume and expand, but if we accept that, why do we try and fight so hard against it? I wholeheartedly believe in leaving a world for future generations, but if we have to destroy our quality of life to do so, why are we doing it at all?
It feels like if we genuinely put our minds to it, we could reverse climate change. If humanity decided it's purpose was to bring the world back to a stable existence and everyone got behind that, I'm sure we could come up with super efficient ways to capture carbon and to radiate heat away from our planet. It feels like, in the grand scheme of things, we're pretty close to molecular construction, maybe only decades or centuries away. If we can control matter at a subatomic level, we can process waste such that it's just more raw material. Maybe we can create and pump ozone into the upper atmosphere. Maybe we can cool oceans and reform ice. Maybe we can trap energy and use it to turn the inside of mountains into molten rock, trapping that thermal energy away.
I guess it gets me wondering: if humans consume, how do we design a world built for humans to consume in a sustainable manner? I wouldn't be surprised if we see a shift away from profit and maximising personal wealth as our primary motivators within my lifetime, or at least within the lifetimes of a few generations to come. The big question becomes: if I have access to what I need to survive, what do I prioritise?
-
Comment on An AI-generated artwork won first place at a state fair fine arts competition, and artists are pissed in ~arts
rich_27 Link ParentI've been reading through this thread and found your discussion with AugustusFerdinand and MimicSquid fascinating. I think there was one thing you missed in your analysis, and that is the...I've been reading through this thread and found your discussion with AugustusFerdinand
and MimicSquid fascinating. I think there was one thing you missed in your analysis, and that is the discerning eye it takes to select from the output of a generator. Sure, maybe infinite monkeys can write Shakespeare, but it is all for naught unless you have someone able to recognise it and select that as the output of the system. There is a huge difference between someone who writes an intricate prompt and takes the first piece the generator creates and submits it to the competition, and someone who writes such a prompt but keeps at it until they have a result they think is truly award winning. Even if we get to a point where AI can generate something incredible just from "award winning art", there is still a huge amount of value added by the person who flips through that output and selects the piece to submit. All in all, a relatively minor point, but I think an important one to add to the discussion. -
Comment on An AI-generated artwork won first place at a state fair fine arts competition, and artists are pissed in ~arts
rich_27 Link ParentI think what the commenter was trying to point out is that the amount of effort that goes into a piece doesn't actually add value itself. If you were to put a huge amount of effort into cleaning...I think what the commenter was trying to point out is that the amount of effort that goes into a piece doesn't actually add value itself. If you were to put a huge amount of effort into cleaning the paintbrush between each stroke, down to the microscopic level, it doesn't mean the painting is going to be that much better as a result.
If we take a paralysed person who has no use of their limbs, for instance, despite painting solely via holding a brush in their mouth if they create a piece of art that captures the same scene with the same level of detail, the same creativity, and the same ability to evoke emotion as that of an able bodied painter, should we hold that painting as a better work of art?
I'm totally with you that it really sucks for traditional artists who've spent years honing a craft that someone else can do with seemingly minimal effort due to a new tool, but at the same time I'm sure it absolutely sucked for the people who spent years honing the craft of navigating the ocean by stars and maps when GPS came about.
The thing I'm excited for is to see what the people who can create fine art using a prompt turn their time and passion towards? If someone could spend hundreds of lifetimes as an artist learning every nuance and developing new ways to express themselves, where would they get to? It feels like we're at the brink of a new era of art, and I'm super excited to see where it will go.
-
Comment on An AI-generated artwork won first place at a state fair fine arts competition, and artists are pissed in ~arts
rich_27 Link ParentI disagree. I think that is a quite a reductive view. In any given piece of art, the artist and the medium combine to create the piece, and the result is greater than the sum of it's parts. If you...I disagree. I think that is a quite a reductive view. In any given piece of art, the artist and the medium combine to create the piece, and the result is greater than the sum of it's parts. If you consider them in isolation, you aren't really taking a fair view; take a 3D printer for instance: to dismiss it as an XYZ plotter with no ability to create or make wonderful sculpture in isolation would not do it justice, just like writing off a car because it can't drive without someone at the wheel. In all three cases, the person is adding value, which makes it possible to do something the artist could not do on their own, be that creating a 3D plastic sculpture, traveling 60 miles in an hour, or turning words directly into imagery.
Current AI generated art is a tool, and one capable of doing some amazing things in a ridiculously short amount of time. However, it is simply a tool at this stage and the person adding the creative element is the person guiding the brush, the artist who specifies the prompt in all its nuance and who selects the artwork from the generated set. Not only do they apply the paint to the brush (wording the prompt), they guide the strokes (choosing the subject matter, composition, and styling), and execute exactly the same discernment in deciding what is good and what is not worth displaying.
I think the real crux of the matter isn't that any worth or value has been removed from the process with AI generated art, it's that the divide between the artist and the tool has shifted. All the same steps take place, but where previously the artist had to execute their ideas on to their medium, now the execution has shifted to the tool and the artist is merely the guide. If I sit holding the paintbrush, mixing the colour you tell me, and letting you move my hand as you choose, are you not still the artist? If you take one step further back and just tell me which bits to paint and how to move the brush, are you not still the artist? Were the masters of old that outlined their work before having their students fill in the details not still the artist, does the work not still bear their name?
If we look at it from the perspective of a future AI system that is both the artist and tool - a program that generates art without prompting - that would require much, much more depth. That would require creativity and experience from which to derive art. I don't think it's fair to even consider current AI art generators in this frame, because they are simply not capable of that and to reduce current AI art to the product of algorithms and a combination of existing works completely removes the artist from the equation. Sure, current computers can't have beautiful thoughts or paint from how they feel, but arguably, something that can is no longer a computer. I don't believe we'll never see electromechanical life that can think or even feel, but if we do it won't be a computer, it will be something new.
The thing is, any huge change is going to upset the status quo. I'm sure the horse breeders were devastated when the motor car grew to be the default mode of transport, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. In the immediate future, I'm sure we will see a flood of new art that is often hugely derivative and doesn't stand on its own as something truly new, but that will just be a reshaping of the landscape. When fine art is a dime a dozen, the things that really wow you, the real creative spark or the piece that speaks to you will become a diamond in the rough and that will become the new definition for what in art is fine. Yes, it might make things difficult for a lot of people whilst we reach a new normal, but that doesn't mean the new medium is in-and-of-itself a bad thing. It should also be noted, we are the sum of what we have seen and experienced. All fine art has it's roots in the things that came before it, however subtle that influence is. You could look at the first time someone used a palette knife to spread paint as a bastardisation, removing the brushwork and the subtlety from the equation, but it being different doesn't make it worse.
I'd be interested to hear you expand on "A human being prompting a computer to do these things may have some sort of artistic value, but it's not at all the same thing as an artist creating from scratch a piece of art.". I really struggle to see your reasoning here, because - to me - all I see are similarities. Whether we see it in what we make or not, we draw our inspiration from what we have seen, and I'd argue the majority of art produced solely by human hands borrows extensively from works they've seen before. Who's to say an AI art generation program solely pulls from existing art, either? I could imagine art programs being trained on wider datasets than just traditional art. Even AI art generators with training sets including previously AI generated art would create something new. I think it's important to keep in mind that current art wouldn't be possible without the incalculable number of hours that have gone into designing and improving paintbrushes and other media, and, likewise, another factor to consider is the work and the creativity that goes into designing a program that uses AI to generate art. To me, once you step back and include the whole process - designing the generator, selecting the training data, monitoring and shaping the resulting program, concepting the piece, crafting the prompt, tuning and tweaking, and selecting the piece - there is a huge amount of creativity and soul that come together to create the piece. It might not be the same as traditional art, but, in my mind, it's just as worthy.
-
Comment on The value of artistic legacy in ~talk
rich_27 (edited )LinkThat was a really interesting read, thanks for sharing! Personally, I don't think the existence of something profane has to tarnish an idea or a creative work. I think it's our responsibility to...That was a really interesting read, thanks for sharing!
Personally, I don't think the existence of something profane has to tarnish an idea or a creative work. I think it's our responsibility to distinguish derivatives from their source and not necessarily tarnish by association. I completely agree with your views on gore vs nudity and the crazy imbalance between what is appropriate when it comes to them. I think there might be an element of bias to your presentation of billboards and the like though; whilst I think those images on billboards are a bit far, gratuitous nudity on billboards would probably be a bit far too, I think those images on cigarette packets are appropriate and do more good than harm.
I think it comes down to audience and setting in a way. I think a Winnie the Pooh slasher has the potential to be a laudable creative work that doesn't have to tarnish the Winnie the Pooh name/brand/legacy at all, but much like any slasher should be kept well away from young audiences. So long as it is treated with care, I see no problem with it being made and being a cult classic, if that's what it turns out to be.
I think the other thing to keep in mind is works like Winnie the Pooh transcend the author. It means so much more to so many people than the author could ever have fathomed, and so much of the life of the character is what we each breathed into it when we were reading/being read to. I think there comes a point where a creator has to step back and understand that whilst the meadow they see before them happened as a result of the small cluster of flowers they created, there is more to it than their input and they should respect that.
Take Star Trek for instance: I was having a conversation about Star Trek recently in a different ~, and one of the things we talked about was The Orville. It could be argued that was (or at least started as) a bastardisation of the show, but ultimately I think it's done far more good than harm for the marque, even if you wouldn't have thought so at the initial pitch meeting and the owners of the Star Trek brand could probably have it shut down if they wished.
We might sit here and think the Winnie the Pooh slasher is a terrible idea or not something we'd ever want to see, but I could see a world in which it turns out to be a love letter to Pooh and what it meant to the writers told through the lens of their preferred genre, even if at the surface it seems more likely to be cashing in on a big brand who's protections expired. If it turns out to not do justice to its source (a la Eragon, Artemis Fowl, Percy Jackson, etc.), that doesn't mean it should never have got off the floor in my opinion, because the good something that builds and adds to the original work does far exceeds the bad a crappy adaption does, in my opinion.
Even with something as offensive as that Mona Lisa you posted, I'd argue it's still art and whilst I wouldn't put it up on a wall or in a gallery, I think there are some redeemable elements to it; part of the Mona Lisa's fame comes from the mystery behind her smile and the different emotions people extrapolate from it, and the commentary provided by that offensive adaption at least urges the viewer to consider that there is more than just the face value of a person, and even a despicable person is still a human being.
Perhaps I have a more charitable outlook than a lot of people when it comes to art, but I think if everyone focused on the positives and gave things the benefit of the doubt, overall we'd have a better time. Let people do their thing and be happy for the people that enjoy it, I say! (Even if I prefer not to see the result😉)
-
Comment on Breaking down how USB4 goes where no USB standard has gone before in ~tech
rich_27 Link ParentI guess the saving grace is minimum standards for USB4 is 20Gbps, which should be fast enough for most people to not find it too slow. The features might be a bit more of an issue, but I think...I guess the saving grace is minimum standards for USB4 is 20Gbps, which should be fast enough for most people to not find it too slow. The features might be a bit more of an issue, but I think most of them are supported in at least some way in the min spec (Thunderbolt being officially integrated, for instance).
-
Comment on Star Trek: Lower Decks S03E01 - "Grounded" in ~tv
rich_27 Link ParentThanks, interesting insights! That's really interesting re. Picard, I found almost the exact opposite; I thought the first season was a refreshing change of pace after Discovery, and found it...Thanks, interesting insights! That's really interesting re. Picard, I found almost the exact opposite; I thought the first season was a refreshing change of pace after Discovery, and found it started to grate on me with season 2, with me giving up with the scene in the car between Jiradi and Raffi after Gynan.
Regarding The Orville, I'd give it a little more time if you've got the stomach for it. It really does hard pivot around the start of season 2 in terms of vibe, getting a lot more character focused and giving some of the farcical characters actual motivations and character growth rather than just "drunk pilot", for instance. I enjoyed it in an I enjoyed Spaceballs: The Movie kind of way, but by season 2 I was enjoying it on it's merits as a 'proper' Trek.
-
Comment on Star Trek: Lower Decks S03E01 - "Grounded" in ~tv
rich_27 Link ParentI'm not sure if this is a controversial opinion or not, but I've been really enjoying The Orville and would probably say it's the best modern Trek around, even if it is only a spiritual successor....I'm not sure if this is a controversial opinion or not, but I've been really enjoying The Orville and would probably say it's the best modern Trek around, even if it is only a spiritual successor. Despite a more satirical first season, from mid-second season it really hits its grove, with that same character driven vibe and deep exploration of complex current cultural issues that I loved in TNG, Voyager, etc.
I'd be interested to know if you've seen it and how you think it stacks up if you have, Picard too.
-
Comment on Liz Truss to be next UK Prime Minister in ~news
rich_27 Link ParentI hope we do see another general election pretty soon. It feels very strange to me that a prime minister stepping down because people weren't happy with how the government were doing can result in...I hope we do see another general election pretty soon. It feels very strange to me that a prime minister stepping down because people weren't happy with how the government were doing can result in a government that wasn't even elected by the people. Theoretically, could a party win an election, have the leader do something terrible, encourage a leadership change and elect a new government that stood for completely different things than the people voted in? I don't really know enough about the particulars of how our government works to know, but if that is the case, it feels a far cry from democracy.
That being said and despite being pretty left, I am happier with Truss than I was during the earlier days of the leadership contest. She seems to be a little more savvy and to have a better intent than she made herself look whilst the majority of the conservative party were voting, as far as I can tell; whether that's accurate, a shift in the media lens, or just how things seem from what's fed into my echo chamber, she seems to now be trying to actually address the energy crisis, so that's good.
I very much hope we get a general election soon, but I am a little less worried than I was a month or two ago!
I watched Reboot recently, and it was absolutely hilarious. When I stumbled on it my hopes weren't high, but I gave it a shot and they absolutely nailed it. The writing was deep and the characters felt real, and it actually had me laughing out loud multiple times an episode. There was something deeply enjoyable about watching a show about rebooting a sitcom and writing it well and seeing it being packaged and delivered in such a well written and hilarious show. Plus, Johnny Knoxville being a good actor? Having only seen him in Jackass (as far as I recall), I did not have high hopes when I realised he was one of the main cast, but he far exceeded my expectations. I would definitely recommend it, doubly so for anyone interested in the writing/directing process.