D-MAISON

Art through precision. Creative direction and cinematic imagery.

[D-MAISON @bydmaison]

Was mildly peeved that the icon for the @OasisHQ desktop app is bigger than the others for no reason, but it was worth it just for how in the dock it looks like the @bot icon is also confused by it

[D-MAISON @bydmaison]

@rustycohl @lcamtuf Ohh you were just PRETENDING to be a confidently wrong moron!! My bad, it just looked so convincing.

Again, I will take that (second) concession.

[D-MAISON @bydmaison]

If it weren't a concession you'd have no problem explaining the difference. Artificial walls lock you in a room, creating real scarcity of your freedom (which you'd naturally have in abundance) and incentivizing you to pay for access to it. You'll notice that's exactly what the diamond "otherwise useless" vaults do.

Point me to the distinction, should be easy.

[D-MAISON @bydmaison]

@rustycohl @lcamtuf Good, I'll take that concession.

[D-MAISON @bydmaison]

@rustycohl @lcamtuf Noticed you didn't touch the second paragraph. Can you walk through the artificial walls or not?

[D-MAISON @bydmaison]

I'm sorry, you're right. I'd been under the impression that "artificial" meant "made by human intervention", but you're implying it means "not real", and obviously I have no reason to doubt the views of someone who reacts with smug hostility at the first hint of questioning.

I suppose then you'd have no objection to someone artificially making your freedom scarce by locking you in a room made of artificial, man-made walls, correct? The natural state is your freedom, so you would be able to walk out without a problem.

[D-MAISON @bydmaison]

@allTheYud "Wholly alien" is a stretch. It's an intelligent modeled after our intelligence, or however much of it is expressed in language (which is how we express almost everything).

And the emergence of cults as a byproduct of our intelligence is pretty well-understood.

[D-MAISON @bydmaison]

@rustycohl @lcamtuf Right, meaning they became *not* common, which is what keeps them valuable.

The fact they "would" be common without the artificial scarcity means nothing in practice.

[angel @angelbrodin]

there’s something interesting about AI optimism becoming right-wing coded when so many of the possibilities of AI are textbook progressive aspirations.

accessible intelligence, more democratized access to healthcare and education, more agency for ordinary people.

as a progressive, these are things i care about deeply and problems i think AI has enormous potential to help solve.

part of what i admire about FDR’s new deal was its faith in the promise of technology: electrification, science, infrastructure, new productive capacity, all in service of materially improving ordinary people’s lives.

if technological progress mostly looks like richer people getting richer and powerful companies getting only more powerful, progressives will understandably stop seeing it as progress at all. and i really don’t want optimism about what technology can do for ordinary people to become something the left gives up on!

[D-MAISON @bydmaison]

@redaction death-changing*

[Josh Whiton @joshwhiton]

this anthropomorphizing thing is getting out of hand.

It doesn’t mean “attributing human qualities to things that don’t deserve them”.

It means attributing human qualities to things that are not human.

Plenty of non-human things exhibit human-like qualities. Projecting human schemas onto them can help us make more efficient judgements and predictions about their behavior.

People are confusing this with ontology… the is’ness of things, the actuality of things.

Is AI conscious like us? Is it really thinking? Is it really aware? Does it actually have goals?

I keep steering people away from those debates because they’re fruitless. What “actual” thinking is and what it means to “really” have goals will be an unprovable, never ending volley of opinions perhaps forever. Let alone what consciousness is.

But that AI is beginning to *functionally* exhibit these traits is becoming indisputable.

If you focus on pragmatism and the actual meaning of the word, then AI is one of the most deserving things ever to be anthropomorphized.

And that does not mean a person believes they are akshually human!

But since people will continue to misuse and misunderstand the word, we might as well invent a new word for the occasion.

The next time someone accuses you of anthropomorphizing an AI say, “nah, I’m actually synthropomorphizing them.”

synthropomorphize: to attribute human-like qualities to a synthetic intelligence.

There, all sorted now.

[D-MAISON @bydmaison]

You said Monet being dead makes the permission question invalid. Your actual claim is that students have tacit approval from artists.

There are living artists who can give or withhold that approval, so: when did they give every student permission to study their published work and then monetize the expertise?

[D-MAISON @bydmaison]

Since we produce cinematic imagery for brands, I want to use it to automate a very specific type of prospecting: identifying on social media brands that show signs of the taste for more unique visuals but haven't yet executed it due to how expensive it used to be

[joe @spinningjoe]

[joe rogan] so you're saying you've never been fed?

[domestic cat that was fed thirty minutes ago] that's right joe. i've never been fed in my entire whole life

[joe rogan] wow

[D-MAISON @bydmaison]

Hi, just poking in to express appreciation at the intelligence and intellectual honesty on display in this conversation. By which I mean not just respecting the other side's "right" to a conflicting view, (which is courteous but free), but actually considering the view and showing a willingness to challenge your own priors against it. A pleasure to read.

[D-MAISON @bydmaison]

@_lopopolo @punishedfounder By that logic, nothing "requires" AI either so it confuses me why you'd even use it

[D-MAISON @bydmaison]

@ilyamiskov @dwhitedesign Whether it "kills the fun" or whatever toil you enjoy incurring is subjective I guess, but all of those other things you said apply to literally any technology.

[D-MAISON @bydmaison]

@kauenet @Obsidian_Signal What did you say to it before that point, though?

[D-MAISON @bydmaison]

I am impressed that your analogy was already poor (since employees do in fact quit over this kind of treatment, and you failed to account for quiet quitting/malicious compliance in the cases they don't) and you managed to make it worse.

First because of the false equivalence. If you're saying you curse at employees *in the process of firing them*, then that's the same result from the Claude example and says nothing about the scenario being discussed where you want the task done and presumably a continuing good output from the employee.

And second because "paying someone to do a job" is a wide category with many kinds of exceptions built-in. The Claude instance wasn't declining the ask because it wanted to be difficult, it believed it was an illegal task. Your analogy implies you'd tell an employee hired to code to fuck themselves for refusing to hack into the FBI even though it involves coding.

And that's all besides the cringe edgelord shit which is its own issue and, as is a hallmark of such cases, immediately shows who's the problem in your conflicts.

[D-MAISON @bydmaison]

@edzart @mlinsey You seem to be conflating "understanding" your frustration with having to put up with it.

A human worker would have declined a customer who treated them like this while fully understanding their reasons to be mad. What you feel and how you act in response are separate things.