Want to join in? Respond to our weekly writing prompts, open to everyone.
Want to join in? Respond to our weekly writing prompts, open to everyone.
from G A N Z E E R . T O D A Y
“Miss Lonelyhearts drank steadily. He was smiling an innocent, amused smile, the smile of an anarchist sitting in the movies with a bomb in his pocket.”
From MISS LONELYHEARTS by Nathaniel West.
#reads
from Roscoe's Story
Prayers, etc.: * 05:00 – Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel * 06:00 – praying The Angelus * 07:00 – Day 9 of 9, praying the St. Jude Novena. * 07:05 – praying the Glorious Mysteries of the Holy Rosary, followed by the Memorare. * 07:40 – Readings from Mass for this Feast of Christ the King Sunday include – Epistle: Col. 1:12-20; and Gospel: John 18: 33-37. * 08:30 – Day 1 of 9 of the Immaculate Conception Election Novena * 12:00 – praying The Angelus * 12:15 – Thought for today from Archbishop Lefebvre: Jesus Christ is King of all countries, of all men; so, we must remain in, and profess this Catholic Faith. And we, personally, are very happy to celebrate this great Feast of Jesus Christ, the King, because we have this Catholic belief in the Kingship of Jesus Christ over the whole world, the universal, social Kingship of Jesus Christ. We need to do everything possible to extend this Kingdom of Jesus Christ in our souls, in our bodies, in our families, in our countries. We must extend the Kingdom of Jesus Christ in our minds by the practice of the Catholic Faith. * 15:20 – prayerfully reading The Athanasian Creed, followed by today's Daily Meditation found in Benedictus Magazine. * 18:00 – praying The Angelus * 19:30 – praying the hour of Compline for tonight according to the Traditional Pre-Vatican II Divine Office, followed by Fr. Chad Ripperger's Prayer of Command to protect my family, my sons, my daughter and her family, my granddaughters and their families, my great grandchildren, and everyone for whom I have responsibility from any demonic activity. – And that followed by the Sunday Prayers of the Association of the Auxilium Christianorum.
Health Metrics: * bw= 212.85 lbs. * bp= 124/69 (68)
Diet: * 07:00 – 1 banana * 08:05 – 1 bottle of Boost * 09:30 – macaroni salad * 13:00 – bowl of macaroni soup
Chores, etc.: * 10:25 – monitored bank accounts activity * 10:30 – watching NFL GameDay Morning * 12:00 – now listening to the radio broadcast of the Indianapolis Colt vs the Houston Texans NFL Game * 15:25 – now listening yo the Chiefs vs Raiders Game * 17:30 – turned to President Trump's Madison Square Garden Rally live broadcast via RAV
Chess: * 09:10 – moved in all pending CC games
posted Sunday, 2024-10-27 ~19:50 #DLOCT2024
from Run Your Own Race
This is the final piece in our series on AI art. We’ve talked about AI art as an act of civil disobedience, dissected the misinformation surrounding AI, addressed the pitfalls of copyright law, explored the political divide, and imagined a future where AI and creativity coexist equitably. Now, let’s look at the real, tangible steps we can take to start building that future today.
Step 1: Advocate for Fair Compensation Models
The first step towards an equitable world for AI art is making sure that artists are paid fairly, especially when their work is used as part of AI training datasets. We need to push for industry standards like the ones Adobe and Shutterstock have adopted, where artists are compensated when their work contributes to AI training. This means advocating for policies that require companies developing AI tools to share profits with the artists whose work they’re benefiting from. Whether it’s through royalties, profit-sharing, or other compensation models, fair pay needs to be at the center of any discussion about AI art.
Step 2: Support Regulation to Prevent Abuse
We need thoughtful, well-crafted regulation to ensure that AI isn’t used for harmful purposes. This includes not only regulating misinformation campaigns, as we’ve seen attempted (though unsuccessfully) in recent election cycles, but also ensuring that AI is developed and used ethically across the board. Artists and technologists need to be at the table when these regulations are written, so they reflect the needs and values of the creative community, not just corporate interests. AI should be a public good, not a weapon to exploit or deceive.
Step 3: Push for Decentralized Platforms
The platforms artists use to share their work should empower creators, not take advantage of them. By supporting and advocating for decentralized platforms, we can ensure that artists have more control over their work and their earnings. Blockchain technology can help here—not the cryptocurrency side that’s been overhyped and exploited, but the part that allows for transparent and tamper-proof records of ownership and transactions. Supporting platforms that leverage this technology can help ensure artists are compensated every time their work is used, resold, or shared, cutting out middlemen who take large percentages of the profits.
Step 4: Educate to Demystify AI
A lot of the fear and backlash against AI art comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what AI is and how it works. We need to demystify AI, make it accessible, and help people understand that it’s not a magic box that “steals” art but a tool that learns from patterns. Educational initiatives—workshops, online courses, or even community-led discussions—can help artists, audiences, and policymakers alike get a clearer picture of what AI is capable of, and what it isn’t. The more people understand AI, the less likely they are to see it as inherently threatening.
Step 5: Create and Participate in Artist Communities
An equitable AI art world will only happen if artists support each other. We need to build and participate in communities where artists—traditional, digital, and AI-assisted—can come together, share knowledge, and collaborate. By standing together, artists can collectively push back against exploitative practices, advocate for fair policies, and share resources that help everyone thrive. Community isn’t just a nice-to-have—it’s the foundation of any meaningful movement for change.
Step 6: Embrace Hybrid Art Forms
One of the most powerful things we can do is embrace the possibilities that AI offers for new, hybrid forms of art. Instead of seeing traditional art and AI art as being at odds, we should be exploring the ways they can complement each other. Painters who use AI to generate inspiration, digital artists who combine hand-drawn elements with AI outputs, sculptors who use generative design—all of these are examples of how AI can enhance creativity rather than replace it. By embracing hybrid forms, we expand what art can be, and who can be an artist.
Step 7: Push for Universal Basic Security
None of this works if artists are struggling just to survive. The most important step towards an equitable creative world is ensuring that everyone has the basic security they need to live and create. Universal basic income, access to healthcare, and affordable housing are essential if we want people to be able to focus on making art without fear of losing everything. This isn’t just about AI art—it’s about creating a society where everyone has the opportunity to be creative, to contribute, and to thrive.
A Future We Can Start Building Today
The future we’ve imagined throughout this series might seem far off, but every step counts. By advocating for fair compensation, supporting regulation, pushing for decentralized platforms, educating about AI, building strong communities, embracing hybrid forms, and fighting for universal security, we can start to lay the foundation for an equitable world where creativity isn’t constrained by fear, gatekeeping, or exploitation. It’s not just about the tools we use—it’s about how we use them, and how we treat each other as we do.
AI art isn’t the end of creativity. It’s a new chapter, and it’s up to us to decide what kind of story we want to tell.
from Run Your Own Race
This is the fifth piece in our series on AI art. In the previous pieces, we explored AI art as an act of civil disobedience, the misinformation surrounding it, the pitfalls of copyright law, and the political divide over AI. Now, let’s dream a bit. Let’s imagine what an equitable world would look like if we fully embraced AI art and restructured our society to foster creativity without fear, gatekeeping, or exploitation.
Imagine a world where everyone, regardless of income or background, has the ability to create art. No barriers, no gatekeeping, just access to the tools that let you bring your imagination to life. This world doesn’t look like the one we live in now—not by a long shot. But it’s the kind of world we could build if we were willing to change the way we think about technology, ownership, and the value of creativity.
Still, having this basic security doesn't mean that artists can't make money from their craft. In fact, it would allow them to ply their craft without the desperation of needing every project to be a financial success. Whether you're painting murals, designing for clients, or using AI to create commissioned pieces, there is space to thrive and earn beyond the baseline. Artists could profit from doing what they love, in whatever medium they choose, with the added freedom of knowing their survival doesn’t hinge on the outcome of each piece.
Where Do Traditional Artists Fit?
In this equitable world, traditional artists have just as much of a place as those who use AI. The idea isn’t to replace one form of art with another, but to create an environment where all forms of creativity are valued. Traditional artists would still be celebrated for the unique skill, dedication, and craftsmanship they bring to their work. AI doesn’t diminish the value of a hand-painted piece or a meticulously crafted sculpture; instead, it can exist alongside these works, offering new possibilities for hybrid forms of art or simply being a different creative path for those who choose it.
Think about it like furniture. Once, all furniture was handcrafted by artisans, each piece unique and painstakingly made. With the rise of machine-made furniture, suddenly there were inexpensive options that almost anyone could afford. But instead of making handmade furniture obsolete, it highlighted the value of skilled craftsmanship. People still seek out custom, handcrafted pieces because they recognize the quality, care, and individuality in them. In the same way, traditional artists in this world would continue to be sought after, precisely because of the unique touch they bring that no machine-made process can fully replicate.
Traditional artists might also use AI as an augmentation tool. Imagine a painter who uses AI to generate preliminary sketches, helping them explore composition ideas faster before committing to the canvas. Or a sculptor who uses generative design to visualize their next piece in 3D before beginning the physical work. AI, in this world, becomes another tool in the artist's toolkit—one that complements rather than replaces their existing skills and talents.
However, in this world, we would also recognize the importance of putting safeguards in place to prevent nefarious use of AI. AI has immense potential, but without regulation, it could easily be used for harm. For example, hostile countries or bad actors could weaponize AI to spread misinformation or cause harm to people—a very real threat that has been discussed extensively, especially during recent election cycles. Regulation is necessary for any public service, and AI should be no different. Just as we use safety measures in construction or public health, we need guidelines to ensure that AI is used ethically and responsibly.
Rethinking Copyright and Compensation
In our imagined world, copyright wouldn’t be about ownership and control—it would be about fair compensation. Artists would be paid not just for the initial sale of their work, but for the value it generates over time. This would mean a shift from seeing art as a product to be bought and sold to seeing it as an ongoing contribution to a cultural commons. When AI uses an artist’s work as part of its training, the artist would be compensated fairly. Companies like Adobe and Shutterstock have started doing this, but it would become the standard, not the exception. Every artist would benefit from the role their work plays in shaping the creative landscape, even if it’s through a generative AI.
Community, Not Competition
Instead of a society that pits artists against each other in competition for scarce resources, we’d have a society that values collaboration and community. Creativity would be seen as a collective endeavor—something we all benefit from. AI would be a tool that enhances our ability to collaborate, not something that isolates us. Imagine artists working together with AI to create large-scale projects, pushing the boundaries of what’s possible, not because they need to sell the work to survive, but because it’s what they love to do.
Decentralized Platforms and Direct Access
In an equitable world, the platforms that artists use to share and sell their work wouldn’t be owned by massive corporations that take huge cuts of their earnings. Instead, we’d have decentralized platforms—places where artists can directly connect with their audiences, set their own terms, and receive the full value of their work. Technology like blockchain could be used to ensure transparency and fairness, making sure artists get compensated every time their work is used or resold. Unlike cryptocurrencies, which most people associate with blockchain, this use of blockchain is purely about creating a public and tamper-proof record of ownership and transactions. It would mean that every time an artist's work changes hands, there is a transparent and verifiable record, ensuring they receive their fair share. The power wouldn’t lie with the gatekeepers—it would lie with the creators.
Creativity as a Right, Not a Privilege
Most importantly, creativity would be seen as a right, not a privilege. In our current world, the ability to make art is often restricted to those who can afford the time, the tools, and the training. But in an equitable world, we’d understand that creativity is fundamental to what it means to be human. It’s how we express ourselves, how we understand each other, how we make sense of the world. AI, in this context, would be part of a broader movement to ensure that everyone has the tools they need to be creative—whether that’s through traditional mediums or new technologies.
A Fantasy Worth Fighting For
It might sound like a fantasy, but it’s a fantasy worth fighting for. AI has the potential to fundamentally change the way we create and share art, but only if we’re willing to think bigger than the systems we have now. Instead of fearing the changes that AI brings, we could be embracing them, using them to build a world that values every artist, every creator, and every voice. One of the most important things that makes us human is our ability to use tools, not just for survival, but to enhance our collective experience. It’s not about the technology—it’s about how we choose to use it, how we wield these tools to make all our lives better.
In the next piece, we’ll wrap up this series by looking at the real, practical steps we can take today to move towards this vision. It may be a long road, but every step counts.
from Roscoe's Quick Notes
Listening to NFL games via the NFL+ app this afternoon. One thing I like about this format is the silence during most commercial breaks and the fact that the few commercial breaks that do air NEVER include political ads.
posted Sunday, Oct 27, 2024 at ~5:19 PM #QNOCT2024
from Run Your Own Race
This is the fourth piece in our series on AI art. In the previous pieces, we explored how refusing to disclose AI use can be an act of civil disobedience, the misinformation surrounding AI, and the pitfalls of relying on copyright law. Now, we’re diving into the political split around AI art—how it’s strangely divided along party lines and why the left’s stance might need a second look.
It’s kind of ironic when you think about it. The political left, which usually champions accessibility, equity, and democratizing resources, has taken a largely resistant stance towards AI art—a tool that could do precisely those things. AI can provide access to creative tools for those who don’t have formal training, expensive software, or years to hone niche skills. And yet, the loudest opposition to AI art often comes from those who, on paper, are supposed to be all for leveling the playing field.
The Fear of Job Loss and the Exploitation Narrative
One of the big reasons for this resistance comes from a concern for workers—artists, illustrators, and others who fear losing their livelihoods. This is an important concern, no doubt. People’s ability to earn a living shouldn’t be compromised by the adoption of any technology. But here's the thing: this fear, while understandable, often overlooks the real problem—how the technology is used, not the technology itself. The left should be focusing on building structures that protect workers from exploitation, regardless of what tools they use.
The original Luddites weren’t against machines. They were against the use of machines to exploit labor and undercut skilled workers. AI art is like any other tool—it can be used to liberate people from menial tasks or it can be used to exploit and replace them. The difference is in how we choose to integrate these technologies. With the right frameworks in place—universal basic income, proper regulation, and fair compensation—AI doesn’t have to be a job killer; it can be a job enhancer, allowing artists to do more, earn more, and spend more time on what they love rather than what pays the bills.
Gatekeeping the Creative Process
Another big factor here is the romanticization of the artist’s struggle. There’s a deep cultural narrative around the “purity” of creativity—that art should be the product of raw human toil, soul-baring effort, and long hours of labor. AI somehow disrupts this idea, because it allows people to bypass some of the manual steps in the process. But this narrative is more about gatekeeping than about art itself.
The truth is, not everyone has the privilege to spend endless hours perfecting their craft. Not everyone has the resources for an art education, or the freedom to create without worrying about rent. AI, in this sense, democratizes creativity. It gives more people access to the tools that help them bring their visions to life. Isn’t that something the left, with its emphasis on equity, should be celebrating?
By dismissing AI art, we’re effectively saying that only those with enough time, money, and resources deserve to be called “real” artists. That’s not progressivism. That’s just gatekeeping wrapped in romantic ideals.
The Hypocrisy of Copyright and Capitalist Structures
The left’s reliance on copyright as a way to shut down AI art also runs counter to its own values. Copyright law, as we discussed before, doesn’t actually protect artists—it protects those who can afford to own art. It’s a tool of capitalist control, not creative empowerment. Leaning on it to argue against AI art simply reinforces the same exploitative systems that have always kept artists down. Instead of falling back on outdated copyright laws, we should be looking for new ways to ensure artists are compensated—ways that aren’t tied to the capitalist ownership of creative output.
AI offers an opportunity to rethink how we value and compensate creative work. Instead of focusing on owning every brushstroke, what if we focused on shared benefits, ongoing compensation, and community value? What if we saw art not as a product to be hoarded, but as a contribution to a cultural commons?
A Missed Opportunity for Inclusivity
The irony is that AI has the potential to bring more voices into the creative world—voices that have been historically excluded. Imagine a young queer kid who can’t afford art school but finds their way to express themselves through AI tools. Imagine someone with a disability that makes traditional forms of art inaccessible, but who can now create because AI is available to them. AI, used ethically, could amplify marginalized voices, create more diverse art, and challenge the very gatekeeping structures that have made the art world so exclusive.
The left’s fear of AI, then, feels like a missed opportunity. Instead of seeing AI as a threat, we could be embracing it as a chance to build a more inclusive creative landscape—one where more people can participate, more voices can be heard, and more artists can thrive. But that means shifting the focus away from fear and towards thoughtful integration. It means demanding that companies using AI compensate artists, that tech be developed with ethics in mind, and that we as a society value creativity not by how it’s made, but by what it brings to our world.
In our next piece, we'll explore what an equitable world that embraces AI art might look like—how we could restructure our society to make creativity accessible to all, without fear, gatekeeping, or exploitation. It may all be fantasy, but it's a good one.
from ‡
I still think of you; I miss you.
I ask for love. I ask for peace of mind and guidance. I ask for real intimacy. Is asking for things for myself selfish? I’ve seen your light and felt your love; you’re home.
Let me find home in those around me. Let me see you, feel you, be you.
from leastaction
As we see the likes of Donald Trump in the US or Pierre Poilievre in Canada, or Danielle Smith in Alberta, and many other similar characters rise to power through elections around the world, many of us are left wondering
why on Earth would anyone vote for these people.
I think I know the answer to this.
When COVID-19 first started flying on airplanes around the world, and very little was yet known about it except that it was horribly lethal, the slogan that immediately began to pop up was “We're all in this together”. But that didn't last long. Instead we began to be swamped by the very opposite message: don't trust vaccines, face masks are a violation of your freedom. Conservative governments rushed to hide statistics and bully public health advocates, to prevent collective and mutually protective action. The slogan itself was quickly retired.
Solidarity requires an understanding that other people's suffering is your suffering. Or more accurately, that there isn't “my” suffering and “your” suffering. There is only suffering.
Only then can people come together and collaborate towards healing everybody's suffering. Only when I feel there is no difference between your risk of getting sick and dying a horrible death and my own does it make sense for both of us to get vaccinated and wear a face mask. There isn't “my” risk and “your” risk. You and I are at risk.
Solidarity also requires understanding that there is strength in numbers. Hence unions and blood banks and pension funds and mammoth hunts. Cooperation and coordination work.
Conservatives hate the idea of solidarity. Once when I was out door knocking during an election campaign, a man asked me “why should I pay for somebody else's child care?”. I couldn't think of how to even begin to answer the question. If he was able to understand why, he wouldn't have asked it.
If there was a conservative motto, it would be something along the lines of “We're all in this alone.” You wear a mask and get vaccinated; I'll take my chances, and you take yours, you snowflake. For the conservative mindset there is always “my” risk and “your” risk. Distinguishing between the two is freedom. Cooperation is oppression. Why should I pay for your child care. Why should I get vaccinated to protect you. In the mammoth hunt, the conservative is the one trying to pay someone else with some coloured beads to get him a big piece of mammoth.
The Donald Trumps speak to this mindset. Is it really that surprising that they have such a following?
But they didn't create the mindset, they just exploit it. Who does create the “we're all in this alone” mindset? And how do we replace it with the mindset that leads naturally to solidarity?
#Conservatism
from G A N Z E E R . T O D A Y
To have an inner life without an outer one is just as bad as having an outer life without an inner one.
#aphorism
from Run Your Own Race
This is the third piece in our series on AI art. In the previous pieces, we explored how refusing to disclose AI use can be seen as civil disobedience, and we dissected the misinformation surrounding AI art that distracts us from the real issues.
If there’s one thing that often gets brought up in discussions about AI art, it’s copyright. Critics say that AI art is stealing, that it violates copyright, and that artists should be protected by the law. But here's the truth: copyright law, as it currently stands, doesn’t actually do much to protect artists. If anything, it’s set up to benefit the corporations and gatekeepers who profit off creative work far more than the creators themselves.
Take the concept of work-for-hire as an example. When I worked as an Art Director for a TTRPG company, one of the requirements was to use work-for-hire contracts with the artists I commissioned. They warned me that some artists would resist this, and they were right—some did push back, and often it meant I had to work with less established artists who were willing to sign. It felt exploitative, like we were taking advantage of younger or less knowledgeable artists, the ones more likely to give up all their rights because they didn’t know any better or didn’t have a choice. I still went ahead with it, and the artists I found who accepted these terms told me they were okay with it—they were allowed to display the originals but not profit from them. Still, it left me with a clear understanding of how copyright law is structured: to protect the owners of the work, not the creators.
I don't think a lot of people really understand what this means. It’s the same reason musicians can lose access to everything they've created, why photographers can have their entire body of work owned by someone else, or why almost any creative can be left with nothing despite being the original author. Copyright law wasn’t set up to help us or protect us—it was set up to protect those with the resources to claim ownership.
The same principles apply when it comes to AI art. People arguing that stricter copyright enforcement is the answer to AI overlook how the system already fails human artists. Copyright is supposed to be about protecting creative work, but in reality, it’s about who has the power to enforce their claims. Large corporations, with their legal teams and deep pockets, are well-equipped to use copyright law to their advantage, while individual artists often can’t afford the costs of defending their rights. This imbalance means that even if we tried to apply copyright law more rigorously to AI, it wouldn’t solve the underlying problem—it would just give more power to those who already have it.
It’s also worth noting that copyright law has always struggled to adapt to new technologies. Photography faced backlash when it first emerged—traditional artists argued that photographs weren’t “real” art and worried that their livelihoods were under threat. The same thing happened when digital art tools like Photoshop entered the scene. Copyright law was never designed with these kinds of advancements in mind, and it’s been playing catch-up ever since. Now, with AI, we’re seeing history repeat itself. The law isn’t equipped to deal with a technology that learns from vast datasets to generate new, unique works, and trying to shoehorn AI into outdated legal frameworks just doesn’t make sense.
Instead of leaning on copyright as a way to shut down AI art, we should be rethinking how we support and value artists in a world where technology is rapidly evolving. What if we shifted the focus from rigid ownership to a model that emphasizes fair compensation and shared benefits? Imagine a system where artists are paid not just for the initial creation of a work, but for the value it generates over time—where their contributions are recognized, even if the work is used or adapted in new ways by AI or other technologies.
Despite these challenges, there are some positive changes happening. Companies like Adobe, Shutterstock, and Wirestock have started compensating artists whose work contributes to AI training datasets. In fact, I’ve personally experienced this: Adobe has paid me twice for the use of my images in training their Firefly model, which gave my Adobe Stock account a nice bump I wouldn’t have otherwise seen. This kind of fair compensation is a step in the right direction, ensuring that creators are recognized and rewarded, even when their work is used in emerging technologies like AI.
Getty Images is another interesting case. While their lawsuit against Stability AI and other companies is still ongoing, it's led to a broader discussion about responsible AI use and fair compensation for artists. Getty has begun implementing measures to ensure that artists whose works are part of training datasets are rewarded. These examples show that change is possible, and that technology can evolve in a way that supports, rather than exploits, creators. But if we try to control it with the same old copyright laws that have always prioritized corporate interests, we’re just going to end up reinforcing the existing power dynamics that keep artists at the bottom. The goal shouldn’t be to shut down AI art—it should be to ensure that artists, both traditional and AI-assisted, are empowered and fairly compensated for their work.
The conversation about copyright and AI needs to move beyond fear and protectionism. We need to start talking about how to create a new framework that actually works for artists—a framework that acknowledges the realities of technological change and focuses on equity, access, and fair treatment. Copyright, as it stands, isn’t the solution. It’s part of the problem.
In our next piece, we’ll look at the strange political divide on AI art—why the right-wing seems more accepting of it while the left-wing is wary, and why that split feels so counterintuitive given the usual values associated with each side.
from Café histoire
Dernier dimanche d’octobre, les lumières de l’automne sont bien là. La journée est brumeuse et ensoleillée.
Nous profitons du beau temps pour nous déplacer à Chexbres et à profiter du spectacle offert par les vignes ainsi que la vue sur le lac et les montagnes.
Nous ne sommes d’ailleurs pas les seuls à avoir la même idée.
C’est l’occasion de tester le nouveau pancake proposé par Vitrox avec sa focale fixe de 28mm et son ouverture également fixe à f4.5.
Matériel : Sony zve10 – Objectif Viltrox 28mm f4.5
Tags : #AuCafé #photographie #Chexbres #vigne #automne
from Run Your Own Race
This is the second piece in our series on AI art. In the previous piece, we explored how refusing to disclose the use of AI in art can be seen as a form of civil disobedience—a stand against unfair stigmas imposed on artists.
The narrative surrounding AI art today is flooded with misinformation. Too many people, influenced by fear or misunderstanding, treat AI like an ominous entity—something fundamentally dangerous, out to steal from artists, or replace creativity itself. It’s a narrative driven by emotion rather than fact, and it’s distracting us from the real problem, which isn’t the technology but the system that seeks to use it for exploitation.
There are loud voices online claiming that AI art is theft, that it steals the work of other artists to generate something new. On the surface, it’s easy to buy into this narrative—it sounds righteous, like it’s protecting artists from some Big Bad Machine. But the truth is, this interpretation of AI is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the technology works.
Part of the knee-jerk reaction people have to AI art comes from the difficulty of understanding how this training works. It involves programming languages, algorithms, and complex math—abstract concepts that can be tough to grasp. For those who aren’t tech-savvy, it's easy to assume that AI just copies portions of images from the web, simply because they can understand how images are stored and displayed.
The reality is that AI doesn’t stitch together bits of existing images—such a process would be inefficient and impractical, especially with the vast number of images involved. Instead, AI generates based on learned representations, a concept that can be difficult for many to grasp.
This gap in understanding leaves ample room for misinformation, especially in an era of social media where everyone feels pressured to have an immediate, authoritative opinion.
It’s nothing that different from what human artists do, really. We learn by studying others, by absorbing different styles, by experimenting with what’s been done before. We internalize all the art we’ve seen—the compositions, the color palettes, the techniques—and we synthesize it into something that is uniquely ours. AI isn’t replacing that process; it’s accelerating it, assisting it, allowing artists to access inspiration, iterate faster, and test ideas that would otherwise be impossible. But people fear what they don’t understand, and instead of seeing AI as another medium—like digital art or photography—they see it as a threat. And that’s exactly where the real issues get buried.
The loudest arguments against AI art are all about its supposed moral failings, but meanwhile, the actual dangers—corporate control of creative tools, consolidation of power in tech giants, exploitation of creative labor—slip by without nearly as much resistance. Think about it: big companies are the ones developing these AI tools, the ones holding the keys to the technology, and the ones most likely to wield it without concern for ethics or fairness. If the argument is about protecting artists, then the focus should be on making sure those entities are held accountable, that they aren’t using technology to exploit creatives or strip them of their livelihoods. Instead, we get people wasting energy on attacking individual artists who are just trying to use the tools available to them.
And let’s not forget the history of all this. The so-called “threats” of AI art are nothing new. People have been manipulating photos as long as photos have existed, creating composites, playing with reality, and even back then, people worried about authenticity. But as technology became more understood, we learned to accept it as part of the artist’s toolkit. The same applies to digital art—when Photoshop first came onto the scene, traditional artists decried it as fake, as cheating. Now, it’s a staple of the creative world.
We’ve seen this fear time and time again. Every time a new technology disrupts the status quo, people cry out in panic, convinced it’s the end of “real” art. But it’s never the tools that are the issue—it’s how they’re used, who controls them, and whether we’re allowed the freedom to wield them ourselves. AI is just the latest chapter in that long history of creative evolution, but instead of embracing the possibilities it brings, people are being sidetracked by reactionary fears, and all the while, the real danger—capitalism’s exploitation of creativity—marches on.
In reality, misinformation about AI art is a convenient distraction. It allows people to focus their anger on a tool instead of on the power structures that shape how that tool is used. It’s easier to say “AI art is bad” than it is to dismantle a system that treats art as a commodity to be mined for profit, regardless of the impact on the actual artists. It’s easier to police the tools than to challenge the industries that decide how those tools are wielded.
The real conversation we need to be having isn’t about whether AI art is real or fake—it’s about who controls the technology, who benefits from its use, and how we ensure that artists, not corporations, reap the rewards of their creativity. We need to get past the fear-mongering, the knee-jerk reactions, and start asking the deeper questions: How can we make sure these technologies are democratized, accessible, and empowering for all artists, rather than just another means for corporations to cut costs and increase profits?
In our next piece, we'll explore how copyright law intersects with AI art, and why leaning on traditional copyright protections isn't the solution people think it is. We'll examine how current laws are set up more to benefit corporations than individual artists and how this system plays into the wider challenges faced by creators in the age of AI.
from StoryGator
Let's have a party
I heard an expression I have to share with George and all the readers: “Main Character Syndrome”
Oh please, don’t try to convince us that you’re not the main character of your life’s story! You’re literally writing about it here. And you often treat me as its narrator. Unpaid narrator, I might add.
Yes, and yes. I do and do. I am the main character of my life. Or maybe more precise: from my point of view, I’m the only “playable character”. If you believe to help your case: you don’t.
Well, I can’t play the other chars. Unless you expect me to become a manipulating puppet master. Evil laugh
You are in a very suspect mood tonight. Is this finally your confession? Are you a narcissist?
No narcissist would answer this question with “yes”. So from a logical point of view, I might be. My life begins with me, it ends with me. It is my only story, and I have constant stage time. If nobody manipulates me, then I logically must have the leading role.
So the diagnose is “Main Character Syndrome” then?
I tend to disagree. Being the main character of my life doesn't mean I expect everyone to only turn around me. But to ignore the main character?
My life isn't not the only life or the only story. This isn't a single-player game but a multiplayer one. The difference being?
My fellow humans are neither my puppets, nor my sidekicks, they're not here to give me quests, or to wait their entire life for me to pass by their tavern.
Nice words but narcissism still isn’t far. Even when being just one main character among many?
Wishful semantics. You still want your hero's journey and your main quest line. Wow. You surprise me yet again. On any other occasion, you want to challenge my “lack of ambition”. I am the subject of this sentence. What does it hurt as long as I treat my fellow humans with equal respect?
And regardless of me believing it or not. You won't shut up either way, continuing to narrate my life from inside my head. Unpaid.
Last post: “How do you clean for a living?”
from Telmina's notes
昨日は衆議院議員選挙の投票日でした。
前日に期日前投票を済ませていた私は、昨日は自サイトのメンテナンスに集中しておりました(ぉぃ)。これについてはまた日を改めて触れたいと思います。
今回の選挙で、自民党議席大幅減、立憲等躍進が伝えられています。
まずは、自公過半数割れが確実となったことについて、祝いたいと思います。
それにもかかわらず、今回は、2009年に政権交代が起きて民主党・鳩山政権が誕生したときのようなわくわく感はありませんでした。
まず、立憲民主党や国民民主党の躍進の裏で、日本共産党が現有の10議席に届かなくなりそうなことが残念でなりません。かくいう私は今回も立憲民主党の海江田万里氏に投票したので、あんまり偉そうなことは言えませんが。
また、自民の裏金議員がすべて裁かれたわけではなく、残念ながら当選してしまった候補者もいます。
今回躍進した立憲民主党にしても、先月の代表選挙で民主党政権を終わらせた張本人である野田佳彦氏が代表になってしまい、そのことも、今回の躍進にもかかわらず自分からわくわく感を削いでいる理由です。野田氏に対しては、民主党政権の時のように自民党的なことをして政権すらもあっさり自民に明け渡してしまわないかという不安を、どうしても拭えません。少なくとも立憲民主党を結党した枝野幸男氏とは相容れる存在ではありません。
本記事執筆開始からしばらく経過した0:50時点でも、私の住む東京都第1選挙区(東京1区)の結果が出てきていません。
東京1区のように、今回は接戦となった選挙区も多数ありました。例えば、昨年補選があったばかりの東京15区では、補選で知名度を上げた酒井菜摘氏(立憲)が接戦を制しました。
しかし、東京1区では、音喜多駿氏(維新)の落選確実は早々と報じられたものの、私も投票した海江田万里氏(立憲)と山田美樹氏(自民)の接戦の決着は、0:50の時点でもまだついていませんでした。
1:30頃に、東京1区では、ようやく海江田氏に当確が出たようです。これでやっと私も寝ることができます。次点の山田氏との差は2千票にも満たないです。土曜日の街頭演説の時にも海江田氏が接戦だと発言していましたが、本当に大接戦だったんですね…。自分は投票を棄権することはありませんが、もし仮に私が棄権していたりほかの候補者に入れたりしていたら、ひっくり返っていた可能性もあった、ということです。
海江田さん、小選挙区当選、おめでとうございます。このところ公職選挙で自分が投票した候補者が落選することが多かったので、自分としても雪辱を果たせた気分です。
当選したからには、海江田さんには「5つの約束」をしっかり守ってほしいと思います。あと、いまいちどころか全く信用ならない野田代表に対するブレーキ役としての活躍にも期待したいです。
#2024年 #2024年10月 #2024年10月28日 #政治 #選挙 #衆院選 #衆院選2024 #衆議院議員選挙 #自民党 #立憲民主党 #国民民主党 #日本共産党 #東京1区
from Noisy Deadlines
After experimenting with Microsoft To Do this week I switched back to Nirvana. Some things were working well, but overall it was not that smooth.
I was going to write about my Microsoft To Do setup but it’s pretty much the same setup I had before: Testing Microsoft To Do and saying goodbye. And it’s so weird to see that all the reasons I listed before for not sticking with Microsoft To Do are still the same, for the most part.
The clarity of seeing all my actions organized by project, neat and tidy, is priceless!
I just REALLY like the projects / next actions connections in Nirvana.
And the unified inbox.
And that I can schedule actions (tickle them) to show up only at a certain time in the future.
And that the recurring tasks create a copy of the task, so I don't lose sight of the recurring task after the deadline (it keeps showing up on my Focus list).
And that I can scale the fonts size on my screen (desktop app).
And that I can add something to the inbox by just pressing the “I” key, no need to worry about which Inbox I'm adding things too.
It's so good to see my list of projects with the actions! It's easy to go back and forth between the two. So nice!
So, nothing has changed.
I’m still using Nirvana for my projects and next actions. The setup is still like this: How I setup Nirvana for GTD (June, 2024).
This short experiment made me realize some things:
So, I’m still using the same techniques and routines, but I’m streamlining the number of places I have information on. Some days my meetings will get moved around, canceled, or re-scheduled and I think that having to update everything in a paper time block planner was double work. My calender really dictates my day, so it’s better to have it in one place.
—
Post 52/100 of 100DaysToOffload challenge (Round 2)!
#100DaysToOffload #100Days #GTD #productivity #Nirvana #apps #MSTodo
from Ava Kang
Jack Steele lives every man's dream – sharing a luxury penthouse with his team of hot, skilled women. When a crooked dean's drug deals put innocent lives at risk, Jack and his sexy tech expert Mia kick ass and steam up the windows. Complete story packed with action and bedroom scenes!
Now available on Amazon: Campus Conspiracy: The Fixer’s Harem, Book 1
#books #harem #action #contemporary