Jojo, Lady of the West

Wait, wait, wait. You’re telling me people leave their homes?!

Poop knife.

I second this question. How am I even supposed to clean it?

I’m not legally allowed to tell you what I did without lying to you

If I know the way that I die, through anything else I will survive.

Sure, that’s one way we could go with it. To the death.

Where do I fit in there? I reproduced.

Relevant xkcd.

I mean we asked you and got six, so…

Yeah. Using people’s names much in conversation just feels like, scummy to me. Like trying to make friends and influence people or whatever

Oh, you mean…um… whatserface?

It’s on Android, but

See, this is why I hate “would you rather…?”

Why can’t it just be content with the amount I feed it, why’s it have to be starving to the degree that it begs?

Ah, yes. From before the flood of modern content

Oh, look, my list, slightly rearranged, missing some star wars stuff, and with some extras for me to try!

Ah, the Athenian model.

I think having some kind of required civics course for the random sounds appointees would do well. Legal language exists for reasons that go beyond being deliberately obtuse, so it could still be used to try and reduce ambiguity

ask for full price with the bugs and multiplayer disabled

At least the bugs are disabled /s

As an artist can use a guitar instead of their own mouth. But can an artist’s art be the guitar playing itself… hm.

Absolutely it can. Numerous artists have created work that unfolds itself into something beautiful through their planning but not through their power.

But can choosing a book from a library be art?

Choosing a urinal counts as art. Of course choosing a book can.

The argument here hinges on the definitions of inherently vague words.

Art is an inherently vague word.

I would rather watch one made by people who care.

This right here is the crux of my argument. What about art made by people who care, but made with ai? Is it so impossible that people might care about something and use ai to make it?

I absolutely do not contend that using ai makes something art. I merely contend that using ai (even as a major part of a work) is not sufficient to make it not art. To whit,

Joel Haver uses an AI filter to do his rotoscoping. I like Joel Haver just fine.

It sounds like you agree with me on that, at least in principle.

Does the director take credit for their actor’s acting, though? Usually, the actors win the award for best acting.

So an ai artist shouldn’t earn any awards for best painting. Directors are still credited as artists. I’m not saying using ai makes you a painter, or any other kind of artist. I’m just saying that “ai” doesn’t magically make a creation “not art”. And yeah, it’s possible to create zero effort slop with ai that can look a lot more interesting than the zero effort slop you can make with just paint, but a kid splattering paint everywhere doesn’t make Jackson Pollock not be an artist.

Well, the word deep fake is literally from the ai boom, but I understand you to mean doctored images to make it look like someone was doing a porn when they didn’t was already a thing.

And yeah, it very much was. But unless you were already a high profile individual like a popular celebrity, or mayyybe if you happened to be attractive to the one guy making them, they didn’t tend to get made of you, and certainly not well. Now, anyone with a crush and a photo of you can make your face and a pretty decent approximation of your naked body move around and make noises while doing the nasty. And they can do it many orders of magnitude faster and with less skill than before.

So no, you don’t need ai for it to exist and be somewhat problematic, but ai makes it much more problematic.