• 0 Posts
  • 9 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 13th, 2023

help-circle
  • Thing is that’s how slurs are born isn’t it? All slurs started as descriptive words for groups of people but when enough people use them with disdain or malice for long enough, suddenly the word becomes irredeemable and it can no longer be said without having all that hate automatically added on intentional or not.

    Even the n word would have started out as a regional term simply for black people (hear me out). If you look at the word or the way it’s pronounced it’s really just a mangled or incorrectly pronounced version of the word negro which is simply the Spanish/latin word for the colour black. But because of the people that said it, in the way that they said it, in the region they said it, at the time that they said it, it can no longer be said lest you be magically transported back to the 1800’s with a whip in your hands.

    So even though cisgender is not currently a slur, if it continues to follow the path of all slurs before it, one day it will be







  • But then you also fall into the trap of arguing against advancements in technology like the Industrial Revolution or globalisation, it’s affects on the environment aside, you could say it was bad because once machines were doing human work faster and more efficiently and cheaper, then so many people ended up losing their jobs. Yes it’s a real concern but it’s not a new concern and historically we know which side won, so either way we know which way things are gunna shake out, just gotta accept it and prepare.

    Or do what a lot of mining and industry towns in the US did and just sit around unemployed or in poverty hoping for the day those jobs come back - exaggeration and hyperbole but you get the idea


  • Mmm yeah like consider daft punk, songs made entirely out of samples from other peoples songs but tweaked and remixed enough to make something that anyone would consider original. I think people arguing essentially “it only counts as music if the songs they are sampling were originally recorded by them” are being a little disingenuous


  • Humans also look at other peoples art to learn, they might also really like someone else’s style and want to produce works in that style themselves, does this make them AI? Humans have been copying and remixing off of each other since the beginning of time.

    The fact that a lot of movie pitches are boiled down to “thing A, meets thing B” and the person listening is able to autocomplete that “prompt” well enough to decide to invest in the idea or not, is the clearest evidence of that, I personally don’t think that just because humans are slower and we aren’t able to reproduce things perfectly even though that’s what we are trying to do sometimes, means that we somehow have a monopoly on this thing called creativity or originality.

    You could maybe argue that it comes down to intentionality, and that because the AI isn’t “conscious” yet, it isn’t making the decision to create the artwork on its own or making the decision to accept the art commission via the prompt on its own. Then it can’t have truely created the art the same way photoshop didn’t create the art.

    But I’ve always found the argument of “it’s not actually making anything because it had to look at all these other works by these other people first” a little disingenuous because it ignores the way humans learn and experience things since the day we are born.