To defend human creativity with that it's magic isn't enough. — Christoffer

Yeah but I've never said it was magic. I just said I don't know enough about the processes in detail, but just a first glance impression gives off the feeling they're different. Chat-GPT I don't think is as intelligent as a human is. It doesn't behave the way a human intelligence would. Can I explain what is the basis for that? No. Does that mean I think it's magic then? Not at all.

I find it a bit ironic that people don't want massive change while at the same time complain that nothing is done about the problems that actually exist in society. — Christoffer

The things is that for alot of people generative AI seems like a solution looking for a problem. I think this video sums it up pretty nicely:

.

If I have to be blunt, the benefits of these AI systems are potentially so massive that I couldn't care less about a minority of bitter artist who lost a job at a corporation that didn't even appreciate these artists contribution enough to value them staying. — Christoffer

According to some reports, AI could replace hundreds of millions of jobs. If it doesn't replace it with anything else, then to brush off the economic disruption to people's lives without considering policies like UBI is the sort of thinking that sets off revolutions.

Is that a bad thing? Does anyone actually care about ads in terms of aesthetic appreciation? Or is everyone trying their best to get their adblockers to work better and remove them all together? The working conditions for artists were already awful for these kinds of companies, maybe it's better that this part of the industry collapses and gets replaced by outputs of the same quality as the no-caring CEOs of these agencies. Why are we defending shit jobs like these? It's them which will be replaced first. — Christoffer

I mean the shoddy standards are gonna affect more than just ads. Expect more to nitpick every piece of media for some bad instances of AI gone wrong. When you're too cheap to hire someone to create something then you're probably also too lazy to fix the inevitable problems that comes with generated content.

Companies who actually care about art but use AI will still need artists, they need their eyes to handle AI generative outputs and change according to plan and vision. — Christoffer

I can imagine the top art companies, like say a Pixar or a Studio Ghibli, focusing solely on human art, in particular because they can afford it. I don't see them relying on AI. Like a high end restaurant that makes it's food from scratch without any manufactured food, they'll probably continue to exist.

There will also be companies that use AI to a certain extent as well, and then companies that rely on it too much to the point of being low-end.

Then start learning AI and be the artist who can give that expertise showing an edge against the non-artists that are put to work with these AIs and who don't know what the word "composition" even means. It's an easier working condition, it's less stressful and it's similarly "just a job". Why is anyone even crying over these kinds of jobs getting replaced by an easier form? It makes no sense really. Why work as a slave because a CEO demanded 5 new concept art pieces over the weekend not caring how much work that this would demand of a concept artist?

A company hiring a non-artist to work with AI won't work and they will soon realize this. You need the eyes, you need the ears and the poetic mind to evaluate and form what the AI is generating, that's the skill the artist is bringing. — Christoffer

None of this really addresses their concern about financial stability. I fear that this new technology just gives more leverage over a group of people who have been historically underpaid. I hope it ends up well, but I'm not gonna brush off these concerns as luddite behavior.

What you're saying is like saying that if an artist makes something that's not transformative enough, we should rule that artist to never be able to look in magazines or photographs again for inspiration and references. — Christoffer

Not at all. They're just not allowed to use their non-transformative output based on those references and expect to get paid for it. Like I said before, if you want to look at a bunch of copyrighted material and download it on your computer, that's fine since all you're doing is consuming.

Why is it difficult to believe? It's far more rooted in current understandings in neuroscience than any spiritual or mystifying narrative of the uniqueness of the "human soul" or whatever nonsense people attribute human creativity to stem from. — Christoffer

Because a mere intention to want to create a painting of a park doesn't get to the interesting parts about how our brains generate that image in our heads from what we know. Of course I don't know much about creativity, neuroscience, or AI like I said before, so I'm gonna avoid deeper conversations and skip over the following paragraphs you've written for the sake of time.

But artists who trace will still come out unscathed compared to how people react to AI generated images. — Christoffer

They certainly deal with alot of criticism themselves if you're implying they don't. Tracing isn't exactly a widely accepted practice.

That's not enough of a foundation to conclude that machines do not replicate the physical process that goes on in our brain. You're just attributing some kind of "spiritual creative soul" to the mind, that it's just this "mysterious thing within us" and therefore can't be replicated. — Christoffer

I'm willing to reject dualism as well, though I'm not sure why you're attributing this and indeterminism to people who just believe that human creativity and whatever is going on in diffusion models aren't equivalent. I'm not saying that the human brain isn't a machine, I'm just saying that there are differences between the architecture of human brains and AI diffusion models something that may reveal itself with a further understanding of neuroscience and AI.

And when we dig into it, we see how hard it is to distinguish what actually constitutes human creativity form machine creativity. — Christoffer

Once again I don't know about that based on the lack of knowledge we seem to have about neuroscience and AI.

But are we saying that we shouldn't progress technology and tools because of this? — Christoffer

Given how disruptive AI can be to all walks of society then I think that is a reason for pause unless we end up creating a very large society backlash.

When photoshop arrived with all its tools, all the concept artists who used pencils and paint behaved like luddites, trying to work against concept art being made with these new digital tools. When digital musical instruments started becoming really good, the luddites within the world of composing started saying that people who can't write notes shouldn't be hired or considered "real" composers. — Christoffer

Those were more new mediums, new ways of making art and music then something that could completely replace artists can do. I'd look more at the invention of the camera and it's relation to portrait artists as a better example.

Therefore, a company who fires an artist in favor of someone who's not an artist to start working with AI generation, will soon discover that the art direction becomes sloppy and uninspiring, not because the AI model is bad, but because there's no "guiding principles" and expert eye guiding any of it towards a final state. — Christoffer

The issue is whether or not they'd care. Honestly we should all be concerned on that because if they're fine with it then artists are out of a job and we as consumers will have to deal with more sloppy art. Already I see advertisements where people have 6 fingers on a hand.

The "good enough" companies, before these AI models, have never been good for artists anyway. Why would artists ever even care for their work towards these companies if they themselves won't care for the artists? — Christoffer

Because they're the ones giving most artists a job at this point and they need those jobs. Unfortunately that's the society we live in.

Then you agree that the lawsuits going on that targets the training process rather than the outputs, uses of outputs and the users misusing these models are in the wrong. — Christoffer

They're both related. If the output process is not considered transformative enough then if the input contains copyright material then it's illegal.

Sorry, ready this too late :sweat: But still, the topic requires some complexity in my opinion as the biggest problem is how the current societal debate about AI is often too simplified and consolidated down into shallow interpretations and analysis. — Christoffer

I can see that you're interested in a long conversation, and I genuinely appreciate the time spent responding, but I just don't have the time on my end to devote to reading and responding to it. Like I said I don't think I'm qualified enough to engage in a deeper conversation on the nature of creativity which is why I've tried to avoid it. I hope you understand.

The difference between the systems and the human brain has more to do with the systems not being the totality of how a brain works. It's simulating a very specific mechanical aspect of our mind, but as I've mentioned it lacks intention and internal will, which is why inputted prompts need to guide these processes towards a desired goal. If you were able to add different "brain" functions up to the point that the system is operating on identical terms as the totality of our brain, how do laws for humans start to apply on the system? When do we decide it having agency enough to be the one responsible for actions? — Christoffer

So your claim is that adding intentionality to current diffusion models is enough to bridge the gap between human and machine creativity? Like I said before I don't have the ability to evaluate these claims with the proper technical knowledge but that sounds difficult to believe.

Because when we compare these systems to that of artists and how they create something, there are a number of actions by artists that seem far more infringing on copyright than what these systems do. If a diffusion model is trained on millions of real and imaginary images of bridges, it will generate a bridge that is merely a synthesis of them all. And since there's only a limited number of image perspectives of bridges that are three-dimensionally possible, where it ends up will weight more towards one set of images than others, but never a single photo. An artist, however, might take a single copyrighted image and trace-draw on top of it, essentially copying the exact composition and choice of perspective from the one who took the photograph.

So if we're just goin by the definition of a "copy" or that the system "copies" from the training data, it rather looks like there are more artists actually copying than there are actual copying going on within these diffusion models. — Christoffer

Okay, but in most instances artists don't trace.

Copyright law has always been shifting because it's trying to apply a definition of originality to determine if a piece of art is infringement or not. But the more we learn about the brain and creative process of the mind, the more we understand of how little free will we actually have and how influential our chemical and environmental processes are in creativity, and how less logical it is to propose "true originality". It simply doesn't exist. But copyright laws demand that we have a certain line drawn in the sand that defines where we conclude something "original", otherwise art and creativity cannot exist within a free market society. — Christoffer

I don't see how originality is undermined by determinism. I'm perfectly happy to believe in determinism, but I also believe in creativity all the same. The deterministic process that occurs in a human brain to create a work of art is what we call "creativity". Whether we should apply the same to the process in a machine is another issue.

Anyone who studied human creativity in a scientific manner, looking at biological processes, neuroscience etc. will start to see how these definitions soon become artificial and non-scientific. They are essentially arbitrary inventions that over the centuries and decades since 1709 have gone through patch-works trying to make sure that line in the sand is in the correct place.

...So, first, creativity isn't a magic box that produce originality, there's no spiritual and divine source for it and that produces a problem for the people drawing the line in the sand. Where do you draw it? When do you decide something is original? — Christoffer

Indeed the definitions are very arbitrary and unclear. That was my point. It was fine in the past since we all agree that most art created by humans is a creative exercise but in the case of AI it gets more complicated since now we have to be more clear about what it is and if AI generated art meets the standard to be called "creative".

Second, artists will never disappear because of these AI models. Because art is about the communication between the artist and their audience. The audience want THAT artist's perspective and subjective involvement in creation. If someone, artists or hacks who believe they're artists, think that generating a duplicate of a certain painting style through an AI system is going to kill the original artist, they're delusional. The audience doesn't care to experience derivative work, they care only about what the actual artist will do next, because the social and intellectual interplay between the artist and the audience is just as important, if not the most important aspect rather than some derivative content that looks similar. That artists believe they're gonna lose money on some hacks forcing an AI to make "copies" and derivative work out of their style is delusional on both sides of the debate. — Christoffer

Artists will never entirely disappear, I agree. And indeed there will certainly continue be a market for human made art as consumers will generally prefer it. The idea that artists can be "replaced" or could be made "obsolete" simply misunderstand the very concept of art itself which is that it isn't a commodity and short of completely cloning an individual artist, you can never truly make someone who creates art like they do. There are plenty of people who will pay up good money to get a drawing by their favorite artist in spite of the number of human artists who can perfectly replicate their style. This is because they value their work in particular and I don't see the rise of AI changing that.

However the problem is that in today's art industry, we don't just have artists and consumers but middle men publishers who hire the former to create products for the latter. The fact is alot of artists depend on these middle men for their livelihoods and unfortunately these people 1) Don't care about the quality of the artists they hire and 2) Prioritize making money above all else. For corporations artists merely create products for them to sell and nothing more so when a technology like AI comes up which produces products for them for a fraction of the cost in a fraction of the time, then they will more than happily lay off their human artists for what they consider to be "good enough" replacements even if the consumers they sell these products to will ultimately consider them inferior.

There are people who take personal commissions but there are also those that do commissions for commercial clients who may want an illustration for their book or for an advertisement. Already we're seeing those types of jobs going away because the people who commissioned those artists don't care in particular about the end product so if they can get an illustration by a cheaper means they'll go for it.

Then you agree that the training process of AI models does not infringe on copyright and that it's rather the problem of alignment, i.e how these AI models generate something and how we can improve them not to end up producing accidental plagiarism that the focus should be on. And as I mentioned above, such a filter in the system or such an additional function to spot plagiarism would maybe even be helpful to determine if plagiarism has occurred even outside AI generations; making copyright cases more automatic and fair to all artists and not just the ones powerful enough to have a legal teams acting as copyright special forces. — Christoffer

Of course the data collection isn't the problem but what people do with it. It's perfectly fine for someone to download a bunch of images and store it on their computer but the reason why photobashing is considered controversial is that it takes that data and uses it in a manner that some consider to be insufficiently transformative. Whether AI's process is like that is another matter that we need to address.

---------------

Sorry if I missed some of your points but your responses have been quite long. If we're gonna continue this discussion I'd appreciate it if you made your points more concise.

AGI doesn't mean it thinks like us either. AGI just means that it generalizes between many different functions and does so automatically based on what's needed in any certain situation. — Christoffer

AGI doesn't necessarily have to think exactly like us, but human intelligence is the only known example of a GI that we have and with regards to copyright laws it's important that the distinction between an AGI and a human intelligence not be that all that wide because our laws were made with humans in mind.

It might draw something that is accidental plagiarism out of that memory, but since the diffusion system generates from a noise through prediction into form, it will always be different than pure reality, different from a pure copy. — Christoffer

The question is whether or not that process is acceptable or if it should be considered "theft" under the law. We've decided as a society that someone looking at a bunch of art and using it as inspiration for creating their own works is an acceptable form of creation. The arguments that I've heard from the pro-AI side usually tries to equate the former with the latter as if they're essentially the same. That much isn't clear though. My impression is that at the very least they're quite different and should be treated differently. That doesn't mean that the former is necessarily illegal though, just that it should be treated to a different standard whatever that may be.

Let's say humans actually had a flash card in our brain. And everything we saw and heard, read and experienced, were stored as files in folders on that flash card. And when we wrote or painted something we all just took parts of those files and produced some collage out of them. How would we talk about copyright in that case? — Christoffer

Depends on what we're talking about when we say that this hypothetical person "takes parts of those files and makes a collage out of them". The issue isn't really the fact that we have memories that can store data about our experiences, but rather how we take that data and use it to create something new.

Numerous research studies have found links between how the human mind generate new ideas to that of how AI models do it. Not in a self-aware way of intelligently guiding thought, but the basic fundamental synthesis of data into new forms. — Christoffer

That's one of the main issues right? How comparable human creativity is to that of AI. When an AI "draws upon" all the data it is trained on is it the same as when a human does the same like in the two scenarios you've brought up?

At the very least it can be said that the consensus is that AIs don't think like we do, which is why don't see tech companies proclaiming that they've achieved AGI. There are certainly some clear shortcomings to how current AI models work compared to human brain activity, though given how little we know about neuroscience (in particular the process of human creativity) and how much less we seem to know about AI I'd say that the matter of whether we should differentiate human inspiration and AI's' "inspiration" currently is at best unclear.

But just a few years ago, manual scraping for images used in concept art was a fairly common practice. So these concept artists have been making money on photobashing copyrighted photos into their concept art for years, but now they criticize diffusion models (that doesn't even do this) to be infringing on copyright, effectively calling it "theft". Is this not clearly a double standard perspective? — Christoffer

It's not like photobashing isn't controversial too mind you. So if you're saying that AI diffusions models are equivalent to that practice then that probably doesn't help your argument.

But yeah, throwing away votes in protest back in 2016 was definitely worth the temporary feeling of moral righteousness. — Mikie

Also gotta blame RBG too for being foolish enough to stay on the court despite being in her 80s and having multiple bouts of cancer. Unfortunately it seems like the Democrats haven't learnt their lesson given what's happening with Biden and Feinstein recently. It really feels like they're gambling the interests of future generations on the selfishness of a few incredibly stubborn old people.

Bibi already has a war with Hamas and I don't see potentially sparking WWIII as something that he'd hope to get involved with, yet he must respond in some way. — BitconnectCarlos

He would be interested in it if his goal is to stay in power to avoid jail. However given the significance of starting a regional war that literally nobody wants it seems that may be a step too far even for him and that may explain why Israel hasn't responded yet.

Now Trump is literally saying "blame it on me" if no border bill passes. Though like I said before, the American people are probably not gonna blame him anyways and he knows it.

It's not 'ironic', it's a deliberate tactic. He's furious that if the bill goes any way to addressing the problem, then it will reflect positively on Joe Biden. He wants the problem to be as bad as possible, so he can use it against Biden and then take credit for solving it himself. — Wayfarer

Oh I understand very well his intentions. He's also on record saying he wants the economy to crash and the US to default on it's debt if it means he can score political points. The man doesn't care about anything apart from staying out of prison.

The Senate Republicans and the moderate Republicans in Congress are all furious about it. — Wayfarer

I'm talking about the average American voter.

Thank you, Mr Surge the Borders President. :roll: — jgill

Ironically, right now Trump seems to be holding up an immigration bill in the Senate that would help address the border that the GOP seems to approve of.

Then again I don't expect people to blame him. After all he got off scot free for the recent spike in oil prices despite pulling out of the Iran deal and cutting their supply off from the rest of the world.

The big question is how many American will just stay home. — ssu

So much as they do and hand Trump a second term it won't be like in 2016 where everyone was assured that Clinton would win. Not only are Democrats and anti-Trump independents (with the exception of Biden apparently) convinced that Trump could win, but they think he's likely to at this point in time. Maybe that will light something under them or maybe not, but it's certainly not an easy decision to make.

Well, a generic democrat would have done better against Trump than Hillary Clinton. But the democrats simply ignored how annoying and hated Hillary was among the Republicans. And how disliked the Clintons in general were. — ssu

Yeah that seems to be the problem with the Democrats which is that they seem to love to ignore their base of supporters. The GOP have the opposite problem which is that they let the MAGA supporters dictate everything. And that is why we have Trump v. Biden again.

You can say the same for the Republicans running Trump since as the polls suggest he's also massively unpopular as well compared to a generic Republican. Of course the GOP don't really have much of a choice since Trump's base is pretty much a cult and he's a narcissist, but I would've thought that Biden would be humble enough to step aside instead of risking it all for a chance at a second term. And I would've thought that Democratic leadership would be smart enough to pressure him to bow out, but then again this is the same party that would rather wheel in Feinstein to the Senate instead of getting her to resign a decade ago. And this is after letting RBG stay on the SCOTUS despite being in her 80s with multiple previous experiences with cancer...

The odd thing about this election is that if either side decided to just run a generic representative of their own party then they'd certainly win. Anyone else but Trump would certainly win against Biden and anyone but Biden would certainly win against Trump. But instead we're getting the rematch nobody wanted.

Latest polls on the general election:

Biden 44% Trump 43% (yougove, 10th Jan)
Biden 41% Trump 43% (morning consult, 14th Jan)
Biden 37% Trump 45% (The Atlanta Journal)

I think Biden was way ahead in the polls prior to the last elections, wasn't he? — ssu

He was, and the funny thing is that I think alot of the current polls show a generic democrat leading by the same amount that Biden did in 2020. It's not that Trump is particularly strong, it's just that the Democrats are insisting on running someone who's just as weak, which would be baffling in retrospect if they end up losing this year because the path to victory seems pretty clear at this point.

No one is getting out of bed to vote for Joe, not even Joe. — Hanover

To be fair I don't think anybody did that in 2020 either.

The good news is that I imagine most voters don't like Trump and believe he's a danger to democracy. The bad news is that I don't know how much that will drive them out to vote in November. The Democrats aren't really doing a great job of convincing them, particularly since they're running a candidate who's arguably as unpopular.

The impeachment inquiry into Biden has begun. — NOS4A2

In other news, the government is about to shutdown due to House Republican shenanigans.

We live in interesting times, for better or worse. — T Clark

Indeed, but I'm just trying to hold on to whatever bit of realism is left nowadays.

That seems like a pretty short-sighted view. I can't imagine there won't be significant advancements in the near future. AI as a real thing has only really been out in public for a year or so. — T Clark

It would be a short sighted view if I said it in early 2022 when alot of the immediate advancements were made in AI art on a monthly basis as people explored what technologies like DALLE-2 can do. The better part of a year has passed since then and it doesn't seem like the exponential growth of the past year has carried over which suggests that we've reached a limit to what current AI image generative technologies can do. Even if we can get Midjourney to produce proper hands more often, it's never truly "taught" how to depict them properly every time, and my suspicion is that the same is gonna be involved with text generation (as some of the ones I've tested out mess it up a good portion of the time).

Now of course I'm not saying that some significant advancement will certainly not come soon. We can never accurately predict technological progress and when it will come. However it seems like that would involve some sort of breakthrough in the technology itself, and isn't just a matter of feeding models more data like we've been doing. As for when that breakthrough will come it's not really clear but I don't expect it to come in the near term.

Fair enough, though I have to say that Russia owning most of the nuclear energy stores may not have been as much of an issue prior to the Ukraine war. Germany in particular was widely criticized by many of it's allies for ditching nuclear energy in favor of Russian oil, creating a dependency that bit them later on.

Countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia own a significant chunk of the oil and gas market, so why would Russia dominating the nuclear energy market be a deterrence? Unless I'm misunderstanding you here.

I would like to think you're right. — T Clark

Me too, though part of the reason for me saying that is that it doesn't really seem like AI art has advanced all that much since this year began compared to 2022 when DALLE-2 was introduced. Although generations have gotten more detailed and covered more subject matter as a result (I suspect) of models being fed more data, I don't really see much progress being made in addressing the obvious shortcomings that I've mentioned in my previous post, and it doesn't really feel like feeding it more will change that. My guess is that it's because it doesn't understand the world the same way we do, since (to my knowledge) the way it "learns" is largely a matter of statistics.

Now I could be wrong, and things could change rapidly in the next few months but the more time passes the more doubtful I become of that happening. At this point it just seems like society is settling into a harmonious coexistence between AI and human artists.

I can certainly see why it frightens graphic artists. I can see plenty of applications where it could replace human image-making e.g. book covers, posters, advertisements, book illustrations, comic books… — T Clark

To an extent yes. I can see it replacing low level artist jobs involving stock photography and simple generic book covers, but nothing on the level of full on comic books just yet. With regards to depicting complicated scenes, scenes with context, and subjects consistently, those are areas where the AI seems to struggle, and given how it's been advancing over these past 2 years I'm doubtful that those issues will be solved in the short to medium term, at least barring the possibility of a sudden technological breakthrough.

Would be great — jorndoe

Indeed it would be. Though I expect there to be militant lobbying efforts against fusion once it starts posing an immediate threat to oil and gas. Renewables and EVs weren't as demonized 10-20 years ago as they are today.

I see their new fossil fuel-approved slogan is “China and India need to reduce their emissions FIRST.” — Mikie

And I bet their other slogan is "We can't reduce our emissions because we'll be reliant on Chinese technology now that they somehow got a head start in the industry"...

...Or some other reason why we shouldn't do anything. I've sort of heard them all at this point.

Well a good chunk of Florida is gonna be underwater at this rate so there's that.

That being said, the fact that climate change is now a part of the culture war is even more depressing development than when it was just a political issue. You can't even make energy efficient appliances without being called "woke", which is a term which is increasingly becoming a synonym for "socialism" on the right.

Doesn't change the substance of this hypocrisy argument you want to make.

Do you mean the climate scientists who go on all expenses paid holidays each year (COP) to the worlds top tourist spots to discuss how everyone else should stop flying, etc. Of course the climate scientists fly to get to COP. — Agree to Disagree

Oh wow, now the scientists are the ones flying around in private jets. There are way, way, more people who are concerned about climate change and I assure you not all of them get to fly in private jets or are even saying we should all stop flying.

Then again, perhaps you're implying that anyone who's interested in stopping climate change should live a completely carbon free lifestyle in order to take their scientific concerns seriously. I've seen plenty of climate deniers saying that we can't just "eat bugs", "move to closet apartments", and "completely getting rid of our cars" as if they're not the only people who seem to bring up such silly solutions. Then they'll go on to criticize those same solutions while ignoring the common ones that are being thrown around, like adopting renewables to the power grid and EVs or making our economies less reliant on flying by building out alternative transit (instead of saying that "everyone else should stop flying"). You know, solutions that would do little to disrupt the individual's way of life and would probably upset no one (except the oil giants of course).

I don't think it's a paradox at all. It's only a paradox if one assumes the absolute Newtonian serial time must exist. It's consistent with local becoming. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In the case where people assume there is an absolute time or some absolute reference frame, then one doesn't really encounter a paradox either. One of the two observers or some other third party has it right while the others are just plain wrong.

The paradox seems to come about from accepting the relativity of simultaneity, and not taking it seriously enough. It assumes that we can simply stitch together different presents in order to get the conclusion that everything is present which is where this idea of the future being "fixed" comes from.

This accepts my premise, which is that we're on an inevitable collision course. — Hanover

I don't think anyone here is claiming otherwise. The damage has already been done and we're gonna feel some pain at the very least (though the degree of course is still dependent on present action).

So I take it you accept some action on addressing climate change even if you disagree with certain approaches like tariffs on polluting countries or regulations on fossil fuels? Sorry if I'm being annoying but I just want to get an idea of where you're coming from.

What's your take on approaches that are less regulatory but promote the research, development, and adoption of green technologies (like with the recently passed IRA in the US)?

Unfortunately, these legal struggles will make Trump even more popular with a large number of Americans. — jgill

More popular with his base, that's for sure. It's less certain when it comes to the rest of the country. I like to think they won't elect an imprisoned felon who will likely try to dismantle the justice system from within if he ever becomes president again, but who the hell knows.

WTF is wrong with the Dems? Biden is six years my junior and I can tell you someone that age should not be president. And then there is VP Harris. — jgill

It's a race to the bottom for both sides. Oddly enough I'd feel pretty good about a party's 2024 chances if they just nominated a generic Rep/Dem while the other side continues to do what they do, but it's looking to be Biden vs. Trump again.

Guess Elon is doing a great job taking care of the bot situation.

Gotta wonder how his whole "pander to the right to sell more Teslas to them" plan is working out. Personally I can tolerate the edgelord stuff if it means more EV adoption but personally I'd prefer it if Musk just focused on making cars and spaceships.

We seem to be suffering through a time when using insults is almost a knee jerk, default tactic. How casually you call another an idiot. please stop doing this. Grow up a bit. Use words that convey real concerns. Leave the food fights for the children. — Varnaj42

Given the amount of attention your posts have received and the number of substantive responses pointing out the errors in your arguments, I think people have been more than patient with you.

Also given that people have been debating this issue for decades with the science on manmade climate change only becoming more clear, the urgency to act only becoming more prominent due to the wasted time spent, and the constant moving of the goal posts by likely bad faith actors (like those paid by the fossil fuel lobby) in order to prevent such action I don't blame people for being a little frustrated either.

Yeah I'm well aware of the grandfather paradox and whatnot, but this thread is about physics and implied time travel.

Not sure if this experiment is old news, but has anyone explained it? — TiredThinker

It's been around for decades and as far as I can tell most physicists still don't believe in time travel. A quick google search and look at the Wiki page gave me that information so I'm not sure why this is being asked here.

Now we see your true colors. — Wayfarer

Alot of climate denialism often boils down to dumb politics. Oh, and rich oil lobbyists who profit off nothing being done (for very obvious reasons) who manage to dupe the former into fighting for their interests.

Sadly things being worse than expected is becoming an incresingly common phrase among alot of climate headlines today so I've learned to factor that into my predictions as well.

I can't think of anyone who thought that getting temperatures below 1.5 C would be achieved, given how sluggish progress has been. Sad but not surprising.

That's why I'm concerned about the infiltration of AI. Not that there won't be real art but that no one will care. Art may become (even more) socially devalued. — Baden

The opposite could also happen too. People have learned to appreciate handcrafted products in the wake of the industrial revolution and mass manufacturing and even now we see people starting to appreciate human made art more now that AI art exists. Of course it's hard to predict how people will react here, but that's just my hope.

Personally I'm more concerned about how corporations will treat the new technology. They may see the technology as being "good enough" and lay off their artists in order to cut costs. In the worst case scenario, we may be heading towards a situation where AI art is worse than human made art but "good enough" for companies to not care about replacing their workers, leading to a media landscape that's more soulless and derivative overall.