Question - when the Tories anti-union guff fails to have the required effect, what will they try next? They appear stupid / desperate enough to think that taking on the strikers will win them votes. We can see through polling that the opposite is in effect. So what desperate move comes next? Perhaps emergency powers to lock up Mick Lynch? Force train drivers on pains of arrest to deliver the same wonderful service as @SandyRentool is receiving from TPE?
The Met really needs the RUC treatment, totally unfit for purpose and seemingly unreformable. How many rapists is that now, not to mention the murderer Wayne Couzens, and many more jailed for crimes committed whilst on duty?
The Met really needs the RUC treatment, totally unfit for purpose and seemingly unreformable. How many rapists is that now, not to mention the murderer Wayne Couzens, and many more jailed for crimes committed whilst on duty?
It's almost as bad as in 1928 when it turned out literally half the officers in the Met were taking bribes and the other half had been intimidating witnesses in various cases involving police officers.
"Alarmed by A.I. Chatbots, Universities Start Revamping How They Teach With the rise of the popular new chatbot ChatGPT, colleges are restructuring some courses and taking preventive measures."
Remember, ChatGPT has only been with us six weeks. This is unprecedented change at such speed. And it could accelerate
You will get a lot of grief for posting those photos
But it is arguable we need to see them. This is not about grown men who like dresses (good luck to them, let them wear what they like). This is about horrible mutilating surgery given to kids who are not old enough to understand the implications, which are clearly lifelong and often medically horrendous
I know of two girls, one a relative, the other the daughter of a friend, who have considered themselves to be boys since around the age of 12. Both of them were repulsed when their breasts started to develop, and they are both desperately saving and looking forward to when they turn 18 and can have them removed. That's just my anecdote, but in their cases the feeling of being in the wrong body certainly seemed to be innate rather then due to external influences. It would be interesting to know how many such girls change their minds about having their breasts removed between the ages of 16 and 18.
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
Rubbish, 60%+ of voters oppose changing gender without doctors' approval, 60% oppose trans athletes competing in womens' sports and less than a third of voters back 16 year olds being able to change sex. You can't even drive and get married at 16 nor leave school if not for further education, training or an apprenticeship now
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
Rubbish, 60%+ of voters oppose changing gender without doctors' approval, 60% oppose trans athletes competing in womens' sports and less than a third of voters back 16 year olds being able to change sex. You can't even drive and get married at 16 nor leave school if not for further education, training or an apprenticeship now
Though from the same poll, two thirds of those asked have paid little or no attention to the debate, and they tend to be those who are least convinced of the case for change.
Loud opposition to this runs the risk of being a self unfulfilling prophecy.
(Something similar happened with Section 28, after all. The tone and volume of those supporting the law made it easier to repeal.)
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
Rubbish, 60%+ of voters oppose changing gender without doctors' approval, 60% oppose trans athletes competing in womens' sports and less than a third of voters back 16 year olds being able to change sex. You can't even drive and get married at 16 nor leave school if not for further education, training or an apprenticeship now
I do wonder how we get through 2 more years of this. OK so you don't need a functioning government - just keep the existing laws and implement them. Problem is that increasing numbers of things in this country are breaking down and not working.
The Labour lead has bedded in at 20% and shows signs of extending towards 25%. Starmer is not Blair, but people seem to be repulsed by the Tories more than drawn to Labour. So the question is that even if Starmer doesn't up his game and start talking about a hopeful future, do people get past 2-3 years of visceral hatred of the Tories and start swinging back to them in scalable numbers as we approach the election?
Whilst I remain sceptical I am increasingly understanding @Heathener and her landslide prediction.
You will get a lot of grief for posting those photos
But it is arguable we need to see them. This is not about grown men who like dresses (good luck to them, let them wear what they like). This is about horrible mutilating surgery given to kids who are not old enough to understand the implications, which are clearly lifelong and often medically horrendous
I know of two girls, one a relative, the other the daughter of a friend, who have considered themselves to be boys since around the age of 12. Both of them were repulsed when their breasts started to develop, and they are both desperately saving and looking forward to when they turn 18 and can have them removed. That's just my anecdote, but in their cases the feeling of being in the wrong body certainly seemed to be innate rather then due to external influences. It would be interesting to know how many such girls change their minds about having their breasts removed between the ages of 16 and 18.
There's certainly a considerable lack of logic in being implacably opposed to puberty blockers, which are reversible, as well as surgery.
I know what I am talking about. You are just piffling away
Incidentally, ChatGPT could replace you tomorrow. Seriously. "Create a character on PB who posts endless boring retweets about Brexit, from a Remoaner perspective. Add the odd uninformed remark about any other stuff"
That's you. You have no particular style, wit or verve that might make you a little harder to replace. You are literally a basic algorithm. ChatGPT could do you in 2 minutes
You should set up the ScottBot now. Then you could go do other stuff while ChatGPT does you on here
The Tories are struggling, and their only hope is a return of Corbyn or someone similar. They've become boring and Starmer may be dull, but he's safe. He doesn't have to do anything, merely not be something,
You will get a lot of grief for posting those photos
But it is arguable we need to see them. This is not about grown men who like dresses (good luck to them, let them wear what they like). This is about horrible mutilating surgery given to kids who are not old enough to understand the implications, which are clearly lifelong and often medically horrendous
I know of two girls, one a relative, the other the daughter of a friend, who have considered themselves to be boys since around the age of 12. Both of them were repulsed when their breasts started to develop, and they are both desperately saving and looking forward to when they turn 18 and can have them removed. That's just my anecdote, but in their cases the feeling of being in the wrong body certainly seemed to be innate rather then due to external influences. It would be interesting to know how many such girls change their minds about having their breasts removed between the ages of 16 and 18.
There's certainly a considerable lack of logic in being implacably opposed to puberty blockers, which are reversible, as well as surgery.
One might almost think some people are motivated by implacable prejudice rather than nuanced principle..
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo.
But that is exactly the point.
At some point art contains the novel, something not tried before, something created from whole cloth by the artist.
And machines will never do that.
Give me one example of "a novel thing" in, say, literature that a computer could never do
I expect there are many plotlines a machine will never come up with.
You can of course disprove this theory by showing us the exact prompts required for your AI of choice to produce The Ice Twins
I know not of this book
To the substantial point, you don't have a point, do you ?All you can say is "there are many plotlines a machine will never come up with"
Name one. Just one. You can't. This is ridiculous
How about this as a reframing?
AI might never produce original art. But it will produce a close enough simulacrum cheaply and instantly, so there won't be money in making original art any more.
That's not a problem- most art isn't made for money, but to fulfil a human instinct to create. But it's going to be a shock for those who currently make their living that way.
I know what I am talking about. You are just piffling away
Incidentally, ChatGPT could replace you tomorrow. Seriously. "Create a character on PB who posts endless boring retweets about Brexit, from a Remoaner perspective. Add the odd uninformed remark about any other stuff"
That's you. You have no particular style, wit or verve that might make you a little harder to replace. You are literally a basic algorithm. ChatGPT could do you in 2 minutes
You should set up the ScottBot now. Then you could go do other stuff while ChatGPT does you on here
Looking at his woeful performance yesterday, perhaps we can we replace Grant Shapps with an AI? We could give it a name, "Michael Green" perhaps. Let it give clickbait speeches.
You will get a lot of grief for posting those photos
But it is arguable we need to see them. This is not about grown men who like dresses (good luck to them, let them wear what they like). This is about horrible mutilating surgery given to kids who are not old enough to understand the implications, which are clearly lifelong and often medically horrendous
I know of two girls, one a relative, the other the daughter of a friend, who have considered themselves to be boys since around the age of 12. Both of them were repulsed when their breasts started to develop, and they are both desperately saving and looking forward to when they turn 18 and can have them removed. That's just my anecdote, but in their cases the feeling of being in the wrong body certainly seemed to be innate rather then due to external influences. It would be interesting to know how many such girls change their minds about having their breasts removed between the ages of 16 and 18.
There's certainly a considerable lack of logic in being implacably opposed to puberty blockers, which are reversible, as well as surgery.
Cass: There is a lack of robust, high-quality evidence regarding the safety and effectiveness of using puberty blockers and cross sex hormones to treat gender dysphoria in adolescents. The long-term consequences of such treatment are also unknown.
You will get a lot of grief for posting those photos
But it is arguable we need to see them. This is not about grown men who like dresses (good luck to them, let them wear what they like). This is about horrible mutilating surgery given to kids who are not old enough to understand the implications, which are clearly lifelong and often medically horrendous
I know of two girls, one a relative, the other the daughter of a friend, who have considered themselves to be boys since around the age of 12. Both of them were repulsed when their breasts started to develop, and they are both desperately saving and looking forward to when they turn 18 and can have them removed. That's just my anecdote, but in their cases the feeling of being in the wrong body certainly seemed to be innate rather then due to external influences. It would be interesting to know how many such girls change their minds about having their breasts removed between the ages of 16 and 18.
There's certainly a considerable lack of logic in being implacably opposed to puberty blockers, which are reversible, as well as surgery.
I honestly don't know what is right here. On the one hand, such surgery does seem an extreme step to take, especially on someone under 18. On the other, I have seen for myself how desperate some of these girls are to correct themselves, as they see it. There are no easy answers.
You will get a lot of grief for posting those photos
But it is arguable we need to see them. This is not about grown men who like dresses (good luck to them, let them wear what they like). This is about horrible mutilating surgery given to kids who are not old enough to understand the implications, which are clearly lifelong and often medically horrendous
I know of two girls, one a relative, the other the daughter of a friend, who have considered themselves to be boys since around the age of 12. Both of them were repulsed when their breasts started to develop, and they are both desperately saving and looking forward to when they turn 18 and can have them removed. That's just my anecdote, but in their cases the feeling of being in the wrong body certainly seemed to be innate rather then due to external influences. It would be interesting to know how many such girls change their minds about having their breasts removed between the ages of 16 and 18.
There's certainly a considerable lack of logic in being implacably opposed to puberty blockers, which are reversible, as well as surgery.
This is an area of great controversy. It is not settled at all
"Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.
Although GIDS advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be.
It's also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children's bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations."
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo.
But that is exactly the point.
At some point art contains the novel, something not tried before, something created from whole cloth by the artist.
And machines will never do that.
Give me one example of "a novel thing" in, say, literature that a computer could never do
I expect there are many plotlines a machine will never come up with.
You can of course disprove this theory by showing us the exact prompts required for your AI of choice to produce The Ice Twins
I know not of this book
To the substantial point, you don't have a point, do you ?All you can say is "there are many plotlines a machine will never come up with"
Name one. Just one. You can't. This is ridiculous
How about this as a reframing?
AI might never produce original art. But it will produce a close enough simulacrum cheaply and instantly, so there won't be money in making original art any more.
That's not a problem- most art isn't made for money, but to fulfil a human instinct to create. But it's going to be a shock for those who currently make their living that way.
I can only speak for my own appreciation of painting, books, music, film and all the rest, but it largely depends on my sense of connection with the human being(s) that made them. Of course this may be a vast self deception on my part but I’ve yet to see something artificially generated that has inspired even a tiny shred of that feeling.
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
No, it won't. This is entirely different
The Tories are rightly opposing a lunacy we will all come to regret
From a pure politics perspective, in the short-term it might be effective at targeting middle-class, middle-aged women who are such an important voting demographic. Shoring up support in the face of a Labour landslide.
Long-term = ???. Women of my generation are highly supportive, if my friends are anything to go by.
Do you discuss it much? I have one friend who is very anti-GRA for feminist reasons ("we're fought so hard to have our identity respected, now adult men feel they can just claim it"), but literally nobody else ever mentions it, although they talk about lots of other political issues. I suspect there are 5-10% who feel strongly on both sides, and 80-90% who don't give it a thought. Perhaps it's different in Scotland because the GRA is so high-profile?
You do lead a weirdly sheltered life. This is a live issue for growing numbers of people
eg Anyone who is a parent of someone aged 9-18 will likely have a view on this
It isn't a problem for lots of people because it isn't an issue. There are no 'trans' issues in my son's school, because it hasn't come on to the agenda in any way. Not even the school. They are living in the past with lots of gender stereotypes, the parents reinforce these in their parenting as far as I can see. This is just an unfashionable suburban primary school. People make the mistake of assuming that it is just some strange thing happening far away, a sort of 'denial'.
I can start to see how huge social change happens, because masses of people are simply caught off guard; they don't see it and cannot find politically acceptable ways of responding to it. It has been like this with the history of immigration; as documented by Douglas Murray in 'the strange death of Europe'.
I wrote an essay at university 20 years ago which assessed the success of the New Left in the 1960's, making the point that whilst 'right wing capitalism' appeared to be in the ascendency, the critique offered of it by the left had also evolved at a pace and was gaining cultural influence, and the 'battle' as to who would win was far from over. Ultimately, the 'left' now dominate the cultural sphere and this has many political consequences.
Shona Robison just said on Today programme that a gender recognition certificate confers no extra rights to someone. That is plain wrong, and legally illiterate. It changes their sex for legal purposes!
At the end of the days SNP politicians like her are no better than the Brexit populists. Prepared to lie about the impact of important changes for their own political purposes.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo.
But that is exactly the point.
At some point art contains the novel, something not tried before, something created from whole cloth by the artist.
And machines will never do that.
Give me one example of "a novel thing" in, say, literature that a computer could never do
I expect there are many plotlines a machine will never come up with.
You can of course disprove this theory by showing us the exact prompts required for your AI of choice to produce The Ice Twins
I know not of this book
To the substantial point, you don't have a point, do you ?All you can say is "there are many plotlines a machine will never come up with"
Name one. Just one. You can't. This is ridiculous
How about this as a reframing?
AI might never produce original art. But it will produce a close enough simulacrum cheaply and instantly, so there won't be money in making original art any more.
That's not a problem- most art isn't made for money, but to fulfil a human instinct to create. But it's going to be a shock for those who currently make their living that way.
There is no such thing as "original art" in the pure sense you are using. It is an evasive way of saying "human art" and thereby reserving to us humans the sole right to make it
No, AI is not human. Yes, it will make art. It will be different, it will be good
You will get a lot of grief for posting those photos
But it is arguable we need to see them. This is not about grown men who like dresses (good luck to them, let them wear what they like). This is about horrible mutilating surgery given to kids who are not old enough to understand the implications, which are clearly lifelong and often medically horrendous
I know of two girls, one a relative, the other the daughter of a friend, who have considered themselves to be boys since around the age of 12. Both of them were repulsed when their breasts started to develop, and they are both desperately saving and looking forward to when they turn 18 and can have them removed. That's just my anecdote, but in their cases the feeling of being in the wrong body certainly seemed to be innate rather then due to external influences. It would be interesting to know how many such girls change their minds about having their breasts removed between the ages of 16 and 18.
There's certainly a considerable lack of logic in being implacably opposed to puberty blockers, which are reversible, as well as surgery.
The reversibility is incomplete and not fully known. Consequences can include permanent infertility, possible issues with bone density, permanent (possibly) changes - compared to what would have happened - to voice etc.
(Should not be taken as total criticism, blockers are almost certainly the right thing for some people, but they shouldn't be seen as a casual, reversible, delay of puberty to buy time. Their use has life-long consequences, which are not yet fully understood. It's a hell of a decision to take in your early teens though, either way - choosing to take them has lifelong consequences; so does choosing not to.)
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
Rubbish, 60%+ of voters oppose changing gender without doctors' approval, 60% oppose trans athletes competing in womens' sports and less than a third of voters back 16 year olds being able to change sex. You can't even drive and get married at 16 nor leave school if not for further education, training or an apprenticeship now
Maybe, maybe not but a Conservative party should not change social norms on a whim, it is liberals job to push social liberalism. If it ever gets majority support then and only then like on gay marriage will Conservatives accept it (most Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage in 2013 only Labour and LD MPs getting it through and Bush's GOP opposed it in 2004 too and was re elected )
When you're in your early teens, everything is urgent. A week is a lifetime.
Yes, you make a good point. For us oldies it's easy to say just wait a few years and then you might feel differently. For them it presumably feels like an eternity of living in the wrong body. That 18th birthday lies in the distant future.
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
So not old enough to vote, buy cigarettes or alcohol, drive a car, sign a legal document, get a mortgage - yet old enough to make such a life-altering decision?
On a point if pedantry - they are old enough to vote in Scotland.
They are however no longer allowed to get married.
No, the UK law change increasing the legal age for marriage from 16 to 18 was for England & Wales only.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo.
But that is exactly the point.
At some point art contains the novel, something not tried before, something created from whole cloth by the artist.
And machines will never do that.
Give me one example of "a novel thing" in, say, literature that a computer could never do
I expect there are many plotlines a machine will never come up with.
You can of course disprove this theory by showing us the exact prompts required for your AI of choice to produce The Ice Twins
I know not of this book
To the substantial point, you don't have a point, do you ?All you can say is "there are many plotlines a machine will never come up with"
Name one. Just one. You can't. This is ridiculous
How about this as a reframing?
AI might never produce original art. But it will produce a close enough simulacrum cheaply and instantly, so there won't be money in making original art any more.
That's not a problem- most art isn't made for money, but to fulfil a human instinct to create. But it's going to be a shock for those who currently make their living that way.
I can only speak for my own appreciation of painting, books, music, film and all the rest, but it largely depends on my sense of connection with the human being(s) that made them. Of course this may be a vast self deception on my part but I’ve yet to see something artificially generated that has inspired even a tiny shred of that feeling.
Derr. That's because you are told, beforehand, that it is by a robot
If you weren't pre-informed of this, AI has already written some persuasive prose and poetry that - I suggest - you would not ever guess is inhuman in origin
And AI has definitely made images that look absolutely artful and human
I could cite various cases that have already arisen, when experts have been fooled by the AI stuff. I can't be arsed to link them, I might get ChatGPT to do it for me
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo.
But that is exactly the point.
At some point art contains the novel, something not tried before, something created from whole cloth by the artist.
And machines will never do that.
Give me one example of "a novel thing" in, say, literature that a computer could never do
I expect there are many plotlines a machine will never come up with.
You can of course disprove this theory by showing us the exact prompts required for your AI of choice to produce The Ice Twins
I know not of this book
To the substantial point, you don't have a point, do you ?All you can say is "there are many plotlines a machine will never come up with"
Name one. Just one. You can't. This is ridiculous
How about this as a reframing?
AI might never produce original art. But it will produce a close enough simulacrum cheaply and instantly, so there won't be money in making original art any more.
That's not a problem- most art isn't made for money, but to fulfil a human instinct to create. But it's going to be a shock for those who currently make their living that way.
There is no such thing as "original art" in the pure sense you are using. It is an evasive way of saying "human art" and thereby reserving to us humans the sole right to make it
No, AI is not human. Yes, it will make art. It will be different, it will be good
So far it's shit, though.
Does (non-human) nature make art? There are beautiful, amusing, soul-enhancing, tragic, comic etc etc shows images sounds being put on by the whole of non-human existence every moment. But is it art? Probably only when humans have selected something, and decided to frame it that way.
You are literally a basic algorithm. ChatGPT could do you in 2 minutes
And yet it won't.
Which rather proves my point
lol. It could, and you know it
Why don't you try? ChatGPT can do code. It could conjure up the ScottBot in 30 seconds, then the rest of your life would be entirely free of the chore of retweeting anti-Brexit drivel
If only every other country was following a similar trend, we'd have something to celebrate.
If our population falls, pb would be stuffed to the gills with complaints (and panic) about declining workforces, stagnation and falling GDP. There'd be no room for yet another round of trans wars and ChatGPT boosterism.
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
So not old enough to vote, buy cigarettes or alcohol, drive a car, sign a legal document, get a mortgage - yet old enough to make such a life-altering decision?
On a point if pedantry - they are old enough to vote in Scotland.
They are however no longer allowed to get married.
No, the UK law change increasing the legal age for marriage from 16 to 18 was for England & Wales only.
The government is hoist on its own petard in relation to the strikes. The wildcat strikes, all too often for political purposes, that I remember in the 70s and 80s wound people up and made them hostile to unions. Strikes by those who have voted for them in a democratic process and with a qualifying majority are strikes by the members that the members have voted for. It is their right to withhold their labour and most, even many Tory supporters, would not want a world where that right was taken away.
The government recognises that so the current bill is at the edges, you can't let people die by withdrawing your labour. But we have all seen ambulance crews leave the picket line for category 1 and 2 calls already. The government is seeking to pick a fight which doesn't exist.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury."
The interesting point there is that the Tories are still operating on the assumption the next election is not lost.
Otherwise any increase in public spending is going to be Labour's problem...
Real political opportunism would be to give every public sector worker a 30% pay rise and then call it Labour Inflation….
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo.
But that is exactly the point.
At some point art contains the novel, something not tried before, something created from whole cloth by the artist.
And machines will never do that.
Give me one example of "a novel thing" in, say, literature that a computer could never do
I expect there are many plotlines a machine will never come up with.
You can of course disprove this theory by showing us the exact prompts required for your AI of choice to produce The Ice Twins
I know not of this book
To the substantial point, you don't have a point, do you ?All you can say is "there are many plotlines a machine will never come up with"
Name one. Just one. You can't. This is ridiculous
How about this as a reframing?
AI might never produce original art. But it will produce a close enough simulacrum cheaply and instantly, so there won't be money in making original art any more.
That's not a problem- most art isn't made for money, but to fulfil a human instinct to create. But it's going to be a shock for those who currently make their living that way.
I can only speak for my own appreciation of painting, books, music, film and all the rest, but it largely depends on my sense of connection with the human being(s) that made them. Of course this may be a vast self deception on my part but I’ve yet to see something artificially generated that has inspired even a tiny shred of that feeling.
Derr. That's because you are told, beforehand, that it is by a robot
If you weren't pre-informed of this, AI has already written some persuasive prose and poetry that - I suggest - you would not ever guess is inhuman in origin
And AI has definitely made images that look absolutely artful and human
I could cite various cases that have already arisen, when experts have been fooled by the AI stuff. I can't be arsed to link them, I might get ChatGPT to do it for me
I accept your back story may not add to appreciation of your dildo whittling, but then I’m not a big dildo fan. Higher art forms inspire passionate interest in the human beings who made them.
"Alarmed by A.I. Chatbots, Universities Start Revamping How They Teach With the rise of the popular new chatbot ChatGPT, colleges are restructuring some courses and taking preventive measures."
Remember, ChatGPT has only been with us six weeks. This is unprecedented change at such speed. And it could accelerate
I mentioned yesterday how children of friends of mine are using it to write essays at Uni.
Rishi Sunak faces a “big backlash” if he presses ahead with a ban on trans conversion therapy which campaigners and Tory MPs say could criminalise parents, teachers and doctors.
The Government has already committed to ban therapists from pressurising gay people to be straight – a move which is entirely uncontroversial.
But over the weekend, Whitehall sources indicated that the Prime Minister wants to extend the law in order to ban the use of conversion therapy around gender transitions – where an attempt is made to persuade children who want to change their gender that they should stay as they are.
Most treatments offered at this stage are psychological rather than medical. This is because in many cases gender variant behaviour or feelings disappear as children reach puberty.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo.
But that is exactly the point.
At some point art contains the novel, something not tried before, something created from whole cloth by the artist.
And machines will never do that.
Give me one example of "a novel thing" in, say, literature that a computer could never do
I expect there are many plotlines a machine will never come up with.
You can of course disprove this theory by showing us the exact prompts required for your AI of choice to produce The Ice Twins
I know not of this book
To the substantial point, you don't have a point, do you ?All you can say is "there are many plotlines a machine will never come up with"
Name one. Just one. You can't. This is ridiculous
How about this as a reframing?
AI might never produce original art. But it will produce a close enough simulacrum cheaply and instantly, so there won't be money in making original art any more.
That's not a problem- most art isn't made for money, but to fulfil a human instinct to create. But it's going to be a shock for those who currently make their living that way.
That just isn't true. Photography and colour printing didn't kill off painting. There are still people who sell painted artworks. Less than before photography, and different art, but people still choose to pay extra for a physical painting compared to a photograph, or a printed poster of a masterpiece. Similarly people pay extra for live performance compared to music recordings. We could have had an iPod playlist, but we paid a substantial sum of money for a swing jazz band for our wedding.
A lot of the routine stuff will be taken over by the machines. Copy-editing, a lot of graphic design, genre fiction, perhaps. But there will still be writers making a living from writing, and designers making a living from graphic design.
I know someone who makes a living hand-making furniture. People still buy handmade pottery.
The future is going to be different, but not as absolutely as people sometimes imagine.
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
So not old enough to vote, buy cigarettes or alcohol, drive a car, sign a legal document, get a mortgage - yet old enough to make such a life-altering decision?
On a point if pedantry - they are old enough to vote in Scotland.
They are however no longer allowed to get married.
No, the UK law change increasing the legal age for marriage from 16 to 18 was for England & Wales only.
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
From my experiments with it, it is a really clever version of earlier travesty generators. Which is pretty much what Nick Cave is saying.
Even when humans copy other humans d the genius is in the “extra” they add into each layer of the process. ChatGPT isn’t doing that.
Which is way, way better than forecast. The OBR were talking up a 5-7% fall in real incomes. The way inflation is falling we may end up with household incomes rising in real terms by the end of this year and for a pretty solid period in the run up to the election.
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
Their birth rate is 6.77 births per 1,000 people. In the UK it is 11.322 births per 1000 people (if I've got the correct figures...)
When your country spends 40 years with a one-child policy, and even then has a shortage of women, it’s hardly a surprise to see the birth rate fall off a cliff a generation later.
To describe the situation as a demographic time bomb, would be to describe Fat Man as causing a small localised explosion around Nagasaki.
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
So not old enough to vote, buy cigarettes or alcohol, drive a car, sign a legal document, get a mortgage - yet old enough to make such a life-altering decision?
On a point if pedantry - they are old enough to vote in Scotland.
They are however no longer allowed to get married.
No, the UK law change increasing the legal age for marriage from 16 to 18 was for England & Wales only.
So it is. So it's more logical than I thought.
And, presumably, Scottish marriages of 16 and 17 year olds will still be recognised in E&W.
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
So not old enough to vote, buy cigarettes or alcohol, drive a car, sign a legal document, get a mortgage - yet old enough to make such a life-altering decision?
On a point if pedantry - they are old enough to vote in Scotland.
They are however no longer allowed to get married.
No, the UK law change increasing the legal age for marriage from 16 to 18 was for England & Wales only.
So it is. So it's more logical than I thought.
And, presumably, Scottish marriages of 16 and 17 year olds will still be recognised in E&W.
Interesting survey showing nuanced attitudes to the war - Spain is singled out in the heading but the overall EU picture is similar, except for Netherlands and Poland (and I assume the Baltic States though they're not mentioned). It does show why Scholtz is moving carefully, with public support for supplying arms but not keen on a long war if necessary to regain every inch of territory claimed by Ukraine (even in Poland it's only a plurality in favour). It's obviously not up to the general non-Ukrainian public to decide, but important as it will influence politicians over time if the war drags on inconclusively.
Has a lot of detail on opinions in 9 EU countries plus the UK.
"In all countries, apart from Poland, the “Peace” camp is larger than the “Justice” camp." "A clear outlier is Poland, where respondents prefer Justice to Peace by 41 per cent to 16 per cent. Meanwhile, the preference for Peace is strongest in Italy (52 per cent) and Germany (49 per cent)."
Which is way, way better than forecast. The OBR were talking up a 5-7% fall in real incomes. The way inflation is falling we may end up with household incomes rising in real terms by the end of this year and for a pretty solid period in the run up to the election.
Do you know how a 2.6% fall compares to previous periods of falling real incomes?
According to one graph I've found there hasn't been a fall in real incomes of more than 2% since some unknown period before the 1960s.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo.
But that is exactly the point.
At some point art contains the novel, something not tried before, something created from whole cloth by the artist.
And machines will never do that.
Give me one example of "a novel thing" in, say, literature that a computer could never do
I expect there are many plotlines a machine will never come up with.
You can of course disprove this theory by showing us the exact prompts required for your AI of choice to produce The Ice Twins
I know not of this book
To the substantial point, you don't have a point, do you ?All you can say is "there are many plotlines a machine will never come up with"
Name one. Just one. You can't. This is ridiculous
How about this as a reframing?
AI might never produce original art. But it will produce a close enough simulacrum cheaply and instantly, so there won't be money in making original art any more.
That's not a problem- most art isn't made for money, but to fulfil a human instinct to create. But it's going to be a shock for those who currently make their living that way.
There is no such thing as "original art" in the pure sense you are using. It is an evasive way of saying "human art" and thereby reserving to us humans the sole right to make it
No, AI is not human. Yes, it will make art. It will be different, it will be good
So far it's shit, though.
Does (non-human) nature make art? There are beautiful, amusing, soul-enhancing, tragic, comic etc etc shows images sounds being put on by the whole of non-human existence every moment. But is it art? Probably only when humans have selected something, and decided to frame it that way.
That, in the end, will be the final argument of the AI-is-SHIT people. Only humans can make art, so this - or that - is not art, no matter how good, funny, moving, sad, brilliant
You will get a lot of grief for posting those photos
But it is arguable we need to see them. This is not about grown men who like dresses (good luck to them, let them wear what they like). This is about horrible mutilating surgery given to kids who are not old enough to understand the implications, which are clearly lifelong and often medically horrendous
I know of two girls, one a relative, the other the daughter of a friend, who have considered themselves to be boys since around the age of 12. Both of them were repulsed when their breasts started to develop, and they are both desperately saving and looking forward to when they turn 18 and can have them removed. That's just my anecdote, but in their cases the feeling of being in the wrong body certainly seemed to be innate rather then due to external influences. It would be interesting to know how many such girls change their minds about having their breasts removed between the ages of 16 and 18.
There's certainly a considerable lack of logic in being implacably opposed to puberty blockers, which are reversible, as well as surgery.
This is an area of great controversy. It is not settled at all
"Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.
Although GIDS advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be.
It's also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children's bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations."
A surprisingly ill-informed debate on PB this morning
Neither is denying treatment consequence free, but that is something that doesn't appear in your account. Puberty blockers have been in use for several decades, so there is considerable evidence of long term safety.
My point was simply that opposing their use as implacably as you oppose surgery is illogical. That's not ill informed at all.
Which is way, way better than forecast. The OBR were talking up a 5-7% fall in real incomes. The way inflation is falling we may end up with household incomes rising in real terms by the end of this year and for a pretty solid period in the run up to the election.
Do you know how a 2.6% fall compares to previous periods of falling real incomes?
According to one graph I've found there hasn't been a fall in real incomes of more than 2% since some unknown period before the 1960s.
The truth is that the SNP government has overreached itself, not for the first time and perhaps even deliberately. This is a matter of nationalist incompetence, not unionist conspiracy. The need to distract from that – as well as to advance their own narrow cause – is one reason that Sturgeon and her allies are going to deafen us with their hysteria over what is in fact a perfectly reasonable decision.
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
Ugg footwear is undoubtedly the ugliest on earth. Perhaps that is the point.
If only we had a footwear specialist on PB to give us the defintive answer.
There’s only one brand of footwear worse than Uggs, Crocs.
Uggs and Crocs are the ultimate in “screw aesthetics, I want to wear something comfortable, for me”. They are rebellion.
Rise up. You have nothing to lose but your Lobb double buckles…
I would never wear Uggs or Crocs, but sheux are my particular bug bear, particularly allied with inappropriate denim. Avert your eyes if of a nervous disposition.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo.
But that is exactly the point.
At some point art contains the novel, something not tried before, something created from whole cloth by the artist.
And machines will never do that.
Give me one example of "a novel thing" in, say, literature that a computer could never do
I expect there are many plotlines a machine will never come up with.
You can of course disprove this theory by showing us the exact prompts required for your AI of choice to produce The Ice Twins
I know not of this book
To the substantial point, you don't have a point, do you ?All you can say is "there are many plotlines a machine will never come up with"
Name one. Just one. You can't. This is ridiculous
How about this as a reframing?
AI might never produce original art. But it will produce a close enough simulacrum cheaply and instantly, so there won't be money in making original art any more.
That's not a problem- most art isn't made for money, but to fulfil a human instinct to create. But it's going to be a shock for those who currently make their living that way.
There is no such thing as "original art" in the pure sense you are using. It is an evasive way of saying "human art" and thereby reserving to us humans the sole right to make it
No, AI is not human. Yes, it will make art. It will be different, it will be good
So far it's shit, though.
Does (non-human) nature make art? There are beautiful, amusing, soul-enhancing, tragic, comic etc etc shows images sounds being put on by the whole of non-human existence every moment. But is it art? Probably only when humans have selected something, and decided to frame it that way.
That, in the end, will be the final argument of the AI-is-SHIT people. Only humans can make art, so this - or that - is not art, no matter how good, funny, moving, sad, brilliant
And fair enough. Rave on, John Donne
I'm sure there will be machine-generated art that I will enjoy. There will certainly be something fun about being able to ask the computer to, "create an adventure novel, set in the far future, about a troubled man called Leon, his sidekick cybernetic cat and a mysterious disappearing typewriter," and then you'll have a book to read and no-one else will ever have read it.
And yet, I expect I'd still pay for books written by humans too.
The Met really needs the RUC treatment, totally unfit for purpose and seemingly unreformable. How many rapists is that now, not to mention the murderer Wayne Couzens, and many more jailed for crimes committed whilst on duty?
It's almost as bad as in 1928 when it turned out literally half the officers in the Met were taking bribes and the other half had been intimidating witnesses in various cases involving police officers.
I will always treasure the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad.
Very, very good at their jobs. At one point they committed the majority of the serious crimes in the West Midlands.
“By God, this Crime Squad is well named!” - Sir Harry Esson
A number of officer were returned to uniform and moved around. We had some in Oxford. They were a barrel of laughs…
Interesting survey showing nuanced attitudes to the war - Spain is singled out in the heading but the overall EU picture is similar, except for Netherlands and Poland (and I assume the Baltic States though they're not mentioned). It does show why Scholtz is moving carefully, with public support for supplying arms but not keen on a long war if necessary to regain every inch of territory claimed by Ukraine (even in Poland it's only a plurality in favour). It's obviously not up to the general non-Ukrainian public to decide, but important as it will influence politicians over time if the war drags on inconclusively.
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
So not old enough to vote, buy cigarettes or alcohol, drive a car, sign a legal document, get a mortgage - yet old enough to make such a life-altering decision?
On a point if pedantry - they are old enough to vote in Scotland.
They are however no longer allowed to get married.
No, the UK law change increasing the legal age for marriage from 16 to 18 was for England & Wales only.
So it is. So it's more logical than I thought.
And, presumably, Scottish marriages of 16 and 17 year olds will still be recognised in E&W.
Can of worms, meet can opener.
The Scottish government has not ruled out also raising the age of marriage to 18 to avoid forced arranged marriages, saying such changes would need to be 'carefully considered'
Off topic, isn't it incredible how one small town in Graubunden has managed to create a brand so unique that its mere mention brings to mind a whole universe of images, assumptions, gripes, conspiracy theories and yearnings: Davos.
Just a humble ski resort yet forever part of global political history among people most of whom couldn't pinpoint it on a map, like Bretton Woods, Mar a Largo or Camp David.
That, in the end, will be the final argument of the AI-is-SHIT people. Only humans can make art, so this - or that - is not art, no matter how good, funny, moving, sad, brilliant
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo.
But that is exactly the point.
At some point art contains the novel, something not tried before, something created from whole cloth by the artist.
And machines will never do that.
Give me one example of "a novel thing" in, say, literature that a computer could never do
I expect there are many plotlines a machine will never come up with.
You can of course disprove this theory by showing us the exact prompts required for your AI of choice to produce The Ice Twins
I know not of this book
To the substantial point, you don't have a point, do you ?All you can say is "there are many plotlines a machine will never come up with"
Name one. Just one. You can't. This is ridiculous
How about this as a reframing?
AI might never produce original art. But it will produce a close enough simulacrum cheaply and instantly, so there won't be money in making original art any more.
That's not a problem- most art isn't made for money, but to fulfil a human instinct to create. But it's going to be a shock for those who currently make their living that way.
There is no such thing as "original art" in the pure sense you are using. It is an evasive way of saying "human art" and thereby reserving to us humans the sole right to make it
No, AI is not human. Yes, it will make art. It will be different, it will be good
So far it's shit, though.
Does (non-human) nature make art? There are beautiful, amusing, soul-enhancing, tragic, comic etc etc shows images sounds being put on by the whole of non-human existence every moment. But is it art? Probably only when humans have selected something, and decided to frame it that way.
That, in the end, will be the final argument of the AI-is-SHIT people. Only humans can make art, so this - or that - is not art, no matter how good, funny, moving, sad, brilliant
And fair enough. Rave on, John Donne
They will routinely fail blind tastings, and in any case art has been - hilariously - setting itself up for this for decades with the unmade beds and pickled shark shit.
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
THERE. IS. SUCH. THING, AS. ORIGINAL. THOUGHT
You really mean "human thought". All of these arguments boil down to this. "It cannot be art because it is not human". "It cannot be intelligence because it is not human". "It cannot be original..."
And so on. I respect the sentiments behind this, but they are not logical. It is understandable fear and defensiveness dressed as argumentation
That, in the end, will be the final argument of the AI-is-SHIT people. Only humans can make art, so this - or that - is not art, no matter how good, funny, moving, sad, brilliant
And fair enough. Rave on, John Donne
Exactly the point Nick Cave was making
Well then, we have no argument! Which is nice. It means I can go buy wine and then hit the gym
I agree. The AIs will never be human. And if you believe only humans can make art, songs, drawings, ideas, whatever, then rock on
That, in the end, will be the final argument of the AI-is-SHIT people. Only humans can make art, so this - or that - is not art, no matter how good, funny, moving, sad, brilliant
And fair enough. Rave on, John Donne
Exactly the point Nick Cave was making
Well then, we have no argument! Which is nice. It means I can go buy wine and then hit the gym
I agree. The AIs will never be human. And if you believe only humans can make art, songs, drawings, ideas, whatever, then rock on
ChatGPT isn’t an AI in the classic sense.
That doesn’t mean true AI isn’t possible. Which isn’t about being human either.
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
And the facts it comes up with are not infrequently wrong. Challenge it and it apologises and offers you a different fact.
Ugg footwear is undoubtedly the ugliest on earth. Perhaps that is the point.
If only we had a footwear specialist on PB to give us the defintive answer.
There’s only one brand of footwear worse than Uggs, Crocs.
Uggs and Crocs are the ultimate in “screw aesthetics, I want to wear something comfortable, for me”. They are rebellion.
Rise up. You have nothing to lose but your Lobb double buckles…
I would never wear Uggs or Crocs, but sheux are my particular bug bear, particularly allied with inappropriate denim. Avert your eyes if of a nervous disposition.
The sheux are fine. Indeed, from this lo-res photo they look like they might be seriously pricey. Crockett and Jones or Cheaneys maybe
The problem is the terrible quasi-flared baggy jeans. If those were skinny jeans he'd look highly cool
You will get a lot of grief for posting those photos
But it is arguable we need to see them. This is not about grown men who like dresses (good luck to them, let them wear what they like). This is about horrible mutilating surgery given to kids who are not old enough to understand the implications, which are clearly lifelong and often medically horrendous
I know of two girls, one a relative, the other the daughter of a friend, who have considered themselves to be boys since around the age of 12. Both of them were repulsed when their breasts started to develop, and they are both desperately saving and looking forward to when they turn 18 and can have them removed. That's just my anecdote, but in their cases the feeling of being in the wrong body certainly seemed to be innate rather then due to external influences. It would be interesting to know how many such girls change their minds about having their breasts removed between the ages of 16 and 18.
There's certainly a considerable lack of logic in being implacably opposed to puberty blockers, which are reversible, as well as surgery.
The reversibility is incomplete and not fully known. Consequences can include permanent infertility, possible issues with bone density, permanent (possibly) changes - compared to what would have happened - to voice etc.
(Should not be taken as total criticism, blockers are almost certainly the right thing for some people, but they shouldn't be seen as a casual, reversible, delay of puberty to buy time. Their use has life-long consequences, which are not yet fully understood. It's a hell of a decision to take in your early teens though, either way - choosing to take them has lifelong consequences; so does choosing not to.)
When were they seen as 'casual' ?
The reality is that there are no consequence choice free choices for transgender kids; it is about balancing risks and benefits. The reality is also that many of those teens wouldn't get a consultation and referral for treatment before they turn 18 anyway, given the length of waiting lists.
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
THERE. IS. SUCH. THING, AS. ORIGINAL. THOUGHT
You really mean "human thought". All of these arguments boil down to this. "It cannot be art because it is not human". "It cannot be intelligence because it is not human". "It cannot be original..."
And so on. I respect the sentiments behind this, but they are not logical. It is understandable fear and defensiveness dressed as argumentation
Not at all.
It processes super-cleverly a huge amount of information. The transition from computers back in the '60s to Apple Watches now. Amazing. But it doesn't think. It calculates.
It doesn't feel grief, elation, joy, sadness, hope, despair, disappointment, hunger, longing. All the feelings, for example, that a day on PB brings to its contributors.
You will get a lot of grief for posting those photos
But it is arguable we need to see them. This is not about grown men who like dresses (good luck to them, let them wear what they like). This is about horrible mutilating surgery given to kids who are not old enough to understand the implications, which are clearly lifelong and often medically horrendous
I know of two girls, one a relative, the other the daughter of a friend, who have considered themselves to be boys since around the age of 12. Both of them were repulsed when their breasts started to develop, and they are both desperately saving and looking forward to when they turn 18 and can have them removed. That's just my anecdote, but in their cases the feeling of being in the wrong body certainly seemed to be innate rather then due to external influences. It would be interesting to know how many such girls change their minds about having their breasts removed between the ages of 16 and 18.
There's certainly a considerable lack of logic in being implacably opposed to puberty blockers, which are reversible, as well as surgery.
This is an area of great controversy. It is not settled at all
"Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.
Although GIDS advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be.
It's also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children's bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations."
A surprisingly ill-informed debate on PB this morning
Puberty blockers have been in use for several decades, so there is considerable evidence of long term safety.
The evidence for using puberty blocking drugs to treat young people struggling with their gender identity is "very low", an official review has found. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) said existing studies of the drugs were small and "subject to bias and confounding".
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo.
But that is exactly the point.
At some point art contains the novel, something not tried before, something created from whole cloth by the artist.
And machines will never do that.
Give me one example of "a novel thing" in, say, literature that a computer could never do
I expect there are many plotlines a machine will never come up with.
You can of course disprove this theory by showing us the exact prompts required for your AI of choice to produce The Ice Twins
I know not of this book
To the substantial point, you don't have a point, do you ?All you can say is "there are many plotlines a machine will never come up with"
Name one. Just one. You can't. This is ridiculous
How about this as a reframing?
AI might never produce original art. But it will produce a close enough simulacrum cheaply and instantly, so there won't be money in making original art any more.
That's not a problem- most art isn't made for money, but to fulfil a human instinct to create. But it's going to be a shock for those who currently make their living that way.
There is no such thing as "original art" in the pure sense you are using. It is an evasive way of saying "human art" and thereby reserving to us humans the sole right to make it
No, AI is not human. Yes, it will make art. It will be different, it will be good
So far it's shit, though.
Does (non-human) nature make art? There are beautiful, amusing, soul-enhancing, tragic, comic etc etc shows images sounds being put on by the whole of non-human existence every moment. But is it art? Probably only when humans have selected something, and decided to frame it that way.
That, in the end, will be the final argument of the AI-is-SHIT people. Only humans can make art, so this - or that - is not art, no matter how good, funny, moving, sad, brilliant
And fair enough. Rave on, John Donne
That's an oversimplification of the arguments.
Is AI just a sophisticated tool? Are the arguments over whether it can produce art similar to the arguments there used to be over whether photography could be art?
Will we one day accept AI as a judge of how good a piece of art is? Allow AI to tell us which bit of the gazillions of bits of art it has itself produced we should give our attention to?
If AI creates loads of the content that AI is trained on, will pop eat itself?
How come, if AI is already involved in the pop songs we listen to, pop songs (according to you) have declined rapidly from a peak some decades ago? Or are we in for a new golden age far surpassing Tom Jones singing EMF as AI gets into its stride?
You will get a lot of grief for posting those photos
But it is arguable we need to see them. This is not about grown men who like dresses (good luck to them, let them wear what they like). This is about horrible mutilating surgery given to kids who are not old enough to understand the implications, which are clearly lifelong and often medically horrendous
I know of two girls, one a relative, the other the daughter of a friend, who have considered themselves to be boys since around the age of 12. Both of them were repulsed when their breasts started to develop, and they are both desperately saving and looking forward to when they turn 18 and can have them removed. That's just my anecdote, but in their cases the feeling of being in the wrong body certainly seemed to be innate rather then due to external influences. It would be interesting to know how many such girls change their minds about having their breasts removed between the ages of 16 and 18.
There's certainly a considerable lack of logic in being implacably opposed to puberty blockers, which are reversible, as well as surgery.
The reversibility is incomplete and not fully known. Consequences can include permanent infertility, possible issues with bone density, permanent (possibly) changes - compared to what would have happened - to voice etc.
(Should not be taken as total criticism, blockers are almost certainly the right thing for some people, but they shouldn't be seen as a casual, reversible, delay of puberty to buy time. Their use has life-long consequences, which are not yet fully understood. It's a hell of a decision to take in your early teens though, either way - choosing to take them has lifelong consequences; so does choosing not to.)
When were they seen as 'casual' ?
The reality is that there are no consequence choice free choices for transgender kids; it is about balancing risks and benefits. The reality is also that many of those teens wouldn't get a consultation and referral for treatment before they turn 18 anyway, given the length of waiting lists.
Have we finally identified one good reason for massive NHS waiting lists?
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
THERE. IS. SUCH. THING, AS. ORIGINAL. THOUGHT
You really mean "human thought". All of these arguments boil down to this. "It cannot be art because it is not human". "It cannot be intelligence because it is not human". "It cannot be original..."
And so on. I respect the sentiments behind this, but they are not logical. It is understandable fear and defensiveness dressed as argumentation
Not at all.
It processes super-cleverly a huge amount of information. The transition from computers back in the '60s to Apple Watches now. Amazing. But it doesn't think. It calculates.
It doesn't feel grief, elation, joy, sadness, hope, despair, disappointment, hunger, longing. All the feelings, for example, that a day on PB brings to its contributors.
You will get a lot of grief for posting those photos
But it is arguable we need to see them. This is not about grown men who like dresses (good luck to them, let them wear what they like). This is about horrible mutilating surgery given to kids who are not old enough to understand the implications, which are clearly lifelong and often medically horrendous
I know of two girls, one a relative, the other the daughter of a friend, who have considered themselves to be boys since around the age of 12. Both of them were repulsed when their breasts started to develop, and they are both desperately saving and looking forward to when they turn 18 and can have them removed. That's just my anecdote, but in their cases the feeling of being in the wrong body certainly seemed to be innate rather then due to external influences. It would be interesting to know how many such girls change their minds about having their breasts removed between the ages of 16 and 18.
There's certainly a considerable lack of logic in being implacably opposed to puberty blockers, which are reversible, as well as surgery.
This is an area of great controversy. It is not settled at all
"Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.
Although GIDS advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be.
It's also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children's bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations."
A surprisingly ill-informed debate on PB this morning
Puberty blockers have been in use for several decades, so there is considerable evidence of long term safety.
The evidence for using puberty blocking drugs to treat young people struggling with their gender identity is "very low", an official review has found. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) said existing studies of the drugs were small and "subject to bias and confounding".
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
THERE. IS. SUCH. THING, AS. ORIGINAL. THOUGHT
You really mean "human thought". All of these arguments boil down to this. "It cannot be art because it is not human". "It cannot be intelligence because it is not human". "It cannot be original..."
And so on. I respect the sentiments behind this, but they are not logical. It is understandable fear and defensiveness dressed as argumentation
Not at all.
It processes super-cleverly a huge amount of information. The transition from computers back in the '60s to Apple Watches now. Amazing. But it doesn't think. It calculates.
It doesn't feel grief, elation, joy, sadness, hope, despair, disappointment, hunger, longing. All the feelings, for example, that a day on PB brings to its contributors.
Which, again, boils down to: it is not human
I get it. It's boring. I get it. Enuff
Thank you; it's very rarely that someone actually changes their mind on PB.
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
THERE. IS. SUCH. THING, AS. ORIGINAL. THOUGHT
You really mean "human thought". All of these arguments boil down to this. "It cannot be art because it is not human". "It cannot be intelligence because it is not human". "It cannot be original..."
And so on. I respect the sentiments behind this, but they are not logical. It is understandable fear and defensiveness dressed as argumentation
Not at all.
It processes super-cleverly a huge amount of information. The transition from computers back in the '60s to Apple Watches now. Amazing. But it doesn't think. It calculates.
It doesn't feel grief, elation, joy, sadness, hope, despair, disappointment, hunger, longing. All the feelings, for example, that a day on PB brings to its contributors.
Which, again, boils down to: it is not human
I get it. It's boring. I get it. Enuff
Thank you; it's very rarely that someone actually changes their mind on PB.
lol. No. I still think you are a bear of very little creative brain. But it is late afternoon in Bangkok. The magical hour approaches. Tanqueray O'Clock
Ugg footwear is undoubtedly the ugliest on earth. Perhaps that is the point.
If only we had a footwear specialist on PB to give us the defintive answer.
There’s only one brand of footwear worse than Uggs, Crocs.
Uggs and Crocs are the ultimate in “screw aesthetics, I want to wear something comfortable, for me”. They are rebellion.
Rise up. You have nothing to lose but your Lobb double buckles…
I would never wear Uggs or Crocs, but sheux are my particular bug bear, particularly allied with inappropriate denim. Avert your eyes if of a nervous disposition.
The sheux are fine. Indeed, from this lo-res photo they look like they might be seriously pricey. Crockett and Jones or Cheaneys maybe
The problem is the terrible quasi-flared baggy jeans. If those were skinny jeans he'd look highly cool
Ugg footwear is undoubtedly the ugliest on earth. Perhaps that is the point.
If only we had a footwear specialist on PB to give us the defintive answer.
There’s only one brand of footwear worse than Uggs, Crocs.
Uggs and Crocs are the ultimate in “screw aesthetics, I want to wear something comfortable, for me”. They are rebellion.
Rise up. You have nothing to lose but your Lobb double buckles…
I would never wear Uggs or Crocs, but sheux are my particular bug bear, particularly allied with inappropriate denim. Avert your eyes if of a nervous disposition.
The sheux are fine. Indeed, from this lo-res photo they look like they might be seriously pricey. Crockett and Jones or Cheaneys maybe
The problem is the terrible quasi-flared baggy jeans. If those were skinny jeans he'd look highly cool
They're thin-soled, spivvy shit.
Possibly designed by some form of AI.
Impossible to say from this photo
I have a pair of Crockett and Jones like this. Not dissimilar
You will get a lot of grief for posting those photos
But it is arguable we need to see them. This is not about grown men who like dresses (good luck to them, let them wear what they like). This is about horrible mutilating surgery given to kids who are not old enough to understand the implications, which are clearly lifelong and often medically horrendous
I didn’t post them lightly - but it’s the reality of the “affirmative care” model that the Interim Cass review criticised and NHS England are stepping back from until they can get any/better data. Cass suggested that “affirmative care” may actually be harmful as the majority of gender questioning children grow out of it - with many turning out gay or lesbian. However, in Scotland, it’s ignored. As you write up thread this has the dangers of turning out like the paedophile scandal of the 1970s when well meaning left wing people took their love of and support for diversity too far. For the avoidance of doubt I am not remotely suggesting that trans or gay people are paedophiles - it is the abuse of children which concerns me. As some have suggested Münchhausen by proxy may be at the root of some of this.
The interesting thing (as you may well know) is the huge increase in the past few years in teenage girls (natal sex) identifying as male. Many with other issues, such as autism (which can give some more stereotypically male behaviours) or mental health issues which may mean they don't fit in and being transgender, particularly with the easily accessible affirmative online groups, may seem like the answer. For some, it certainly is (I've worked with a young transgender male medic and he is certainly very happy in his skin now - his story is pretty inspiring, really) but for others it's possible that this is not the solution at all, but comes with plenty of downsides if that's the case.
Studies of persistance of a childhood transgender identity find levels of anything from 2% to around 40% persisting with the transgender identity into adulthood. Badly needs more good quality research to understand it better. But a the broad evidence is that a majority at least of children who question their gender will not go on to transition long term, which is an important thing to recognise.
ETA: Health warning on those persistance figures - a lot of older studies were showing the lower figures, newer ones tend to show higher. The fact is there isn't really a very good estimate.
"Alarmed by A.I. Chatbots, Universities Start Revamping How They Teach With the rise of the popular new chatbot ChatGPT, colleges are restructuring some courses and taking preventive measures."
Remember, ChatGPT has only been with us six weeks. This is unprecedented change at such speed. And it could accelerate
I mentioned yesterday how children of friends of mine are using it to write essays at Uni.
Imagine paying all that money for a degree and then not doing the work. They're in for a shock when they do their finals. And when they enter the labour market and realise they have failed to develop their ability to think.
Comments
But for China, it's only 0.06% of the population.
At some point art contains the novel, something not tried before, something created from whole cloth by the artist.
And machines will never do that.
AI and ChatGPT has hit education
https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.nytimes.com/2023/01/16/technology/chatgpt-artificial-intelligence-universities.amp.html
"Alarmed by A.I. Chatbots, Universities Start Revamping How They Teach
With the rise of the popular new chatbot ChatGPT, colleges are restructuring some courses and taking preventive measures."
Remember, ChatGPT has only been with us six weeks. This is unprecedented change at such speed. And it could accelerate
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/17/chinas-population-drops-for-the-first-time-in-decades.html
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2022/07/20/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights
You can of course disprove this theory by showing us the exact prompts required for your AI of choice to produce The Ice Twins
https://twitter.com/BornAKang/status/1615111633692499989
(This is where someone says it isn't real...)
To the substantial point, you don't have a point, do you ?All you can say is "there are many plotlines a machine will never come up with"
Name one. Just one. You can't. This is ridiculous
Show me a machine writing that book.
You can't. This is ridiculous
Loud opposition to this runs the risk of being a self unfulfilling prophecy.
(Something similar happened with Section 28, after all. The tone and volume of those supporting the law made it easier to repeal.)
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx
The Labour lead has bedded in at 20% and shows signs of extending towards 25%. Starmer is not Blair, but people seem to be repulsed by the Tories more than drawn to Labour. So the question is that even if Starmer doesn't up his game and start talking about a hopeful future, do people get past 2-3 years of visceral hatred of the Tories and start swinging back to them in scalable numbers as we approach the election?
Whilst I remain sceptical I am increasingly understanding @Heathener and her landslide prediction.
Prove there isn't a chocolate teapot with the word "Ni" engraved upon it orbiting Jupiter right now.
Incidentally, ChatGPT could replace you tomorrow. Seriously. "Create a character on PB who posts endless boring retweets about Brexit, from a Remoaner perspective. Add the odd uninformed remark about any other stuff"
That's you. You have no particular style, wit or verve that might make you a little harder to replace. You are literally a basic algorithm. ChatGPT could do you in 2 minutes
You should set up the ScottBot now. Then you could go do other stuff while ChatGPT does you on here
Naturally I chose the service with the Cat on the front, currently thrashing its bits off through Standedge Tunnel.
AI might never produce original art. But it will produce a close enough simulacrum cheaply and instantly, so there won't be money in making original art any more.
That's not a problem- most art isn't made for money, but to fulfil a human instinct to create. But it's going to be a shock for those who currently make their living that way.
Which rather proves my point
"Puberty Blockers Not So Reversible After All"
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/puberty-blockers-not-so-reversible-after-all/
"Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.
Although GIDS advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be.
It's also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children's bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations."
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/
A surprisingly ill-informed debate on PB this morning
https://twitter.com/NetworkRailWssx/status/1614911991671394306
When you're in your early teens, everything is urgent. A week is a lifetime.
I can start to see how huge social change happens, because masses of people are simply caught off guard; they don't see it and cannot find politically acceptable ways of responding to it. It has been like this with the history of immigration; as documented by Douglas Murray in 'the strange death of Europe'.
I wrote an essay at university 20 years ago which assessed the success of the New Left in the 1960's, making the point that whilst 'right wing capitalism' appeared to be in the ascendency, the critique offered of it by the left had also evolved at a pace and was gaining cultural influence, and the 'battle' as to who would win was far from over. Ultimately, the 'left' now dominate the cultural sphere and this has many political consequences.
At the end of the days SNP politicians like her are no better than the Brexit populists. Prepared to lie about the impact of important changes for their own political purposes.
https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1615256686385586178
No, AI is not human. Yes, it will make art. It will be different, it will be good
(Should not be taken as total criticism, blockers are almost certainly the right thing for some people, but they shouldn't be seen as a casual, reversible, delay of puberty to buy time. Their use has life-long consequences, which are not yet fully understood. It's a hell of a decision to take in your early teens though, either way - choosing to take them has lifelong consequences; so does choosing not to.)
If you weren't pre-informed of this, AI has already written some persuasive prose and poetry that - I suggest - you would not ever guess is inhuman in origin
And AI has definitely made images that look absolutely artful and human
I could cite various cases that have already arisen, when experts have been fooled by the AI stuff. I can't be arsed to link them, I might get ChatGPT to do it for me
Does (non-human) nature make art? There are beautiful, amusing, soul-enhancing, tragic, comic etc etc shows images sounds being put on by the whole of non-human existence every moment. But is it art?
Probably only when humans have selected something, and decided to frame it that way.
Why don't you try? ChatGPT can do code. It could conjure up the ScottBot in 30 seconds, then the rest of your life would be entirely free of the chore of retweeting anti-Brexit drivel
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
I accept your back story may not add to appreciation of your dildo whittling, but then I’m not a big dildo fan. Higher art forms inspire passionate interest in the human beings who made them.
The Government has already committed to ban therapists from pressurising gay people to be straight – a move which is entirely uncontroversial.
But over the weekend, Whitehall sources indicated that the Prime Minister wants to extend the law in order to ban the use of conversion therapy around gender transitions – where an attempt is made to persuade children who want to change their gender that they should stay as they are.
https://archive.ph/7RF4E
Meanwhile, the NHS in England says:
Most treatments offered at this stage are psychological rather than medical. This is because in many cases gender variant behaviour or feelings disappear as children reach puberty.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/
A lot of the routine stuff will be taken over by the machines. Copy-editing, a lot of graphic design, genre fiction, perhaps. But there will still be writers making a living from writing, and designers making a living from graphic design.
I know someone who makes a living hand-making furniture. People still buy handmade pottery.
The future is going to be different, but not as absolutely as people sometimes imagine.
Even when humans copy other humans d the genius is in the “extra” they add into each layer of the process. ChatGPT isn’t doing that.
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
https://the-decoder.com/gpt-4-only-launches-when-it-is-safe-and-responsible/
To describe the situation as a demographic time bomb, would be to describe Fat Man as causing a small localised explosion around Nagasaki.
Rise up. You have nothing to lose but your Lobb double buckles…
https://ecfr.eu/publication/peace-versus-justice-the-coming-european-split-over-the-war-in-ukraine/
Has a lot of detail on opinions in 9 EU countries plus the UK.
"In all countries, apart from Poland, the “Peace” camp is larger than the “Justice” camp."
"A clear outlier is Poland, where respondents prefer Justice to Peace by 41 per cent to 16 per cent. Meanwhile, the preference for Peace is strongest in Italy (52 per cent) and Germany (49 per cent)."
According to one graph I've found there hasn't been a fall in real incomes of more than 2% since some unknown period before the 1960s.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/nov/17/obr-confirms-uk-enters-year-long-recession-with-half-a-million-job-losses-likely
Not sure how Britain would manage to avoid a recession in the context of such an unprecedentedly large decline in incomes.
And fair enough. Rave on, John Donne
Puberty blockers have been in use for several decades, so there is considerable evidence of long term safety.
My point was simply that opposing their use as implacably as you oppose surgery is illogical. That's not ill informed at all.
The truth is that the SNP government has overreached itself, not for the first time and perhaps even deliberately. This is a matter of nationalist incompetence, not unionist conspiracy. The need to distract from that – as well as to advance their own narrow cause – is one reason that Sturgeon and her allies are going to deafen us with their hysteria over what is in fact a perfectly reasonable decision.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/scotland/2023/01/rishi-sunak-has-every-right-to-block-scotlands-gender-bill
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
Avert your eyes if of a nervous disposition.
And yet, I expect I'd still pay for books written by humans too.
Very, very good at their jobs. At one point they committed the majority of the serious crimes in the West Midlands.
“By God, this Crime Squad is well named!” - Sir Harry Esson
A number of officer were returned to uniform and moved around. We had some in Oxford. They were a barrel of laughs…
In reality, neither outcome can be guaranteed.
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/snp-ministers-urged-raise-legal-27704281
A 16 year old Scots arranged marriage would certainly no longer be recognised in English or Welsh law
Just a humble ski resort yet forever part of global political history among people most of whom couldn't pinpoint it on a map, like Bretton Woods, Mar a Largo or Camp David.
You really mean "human thought". All of these arguments boil down to this. "It cannot be art because it is not human". "It cannot be intelligence because it is not human". "It cannot be original..."
And so on. I respect the sentiments behind this, but they are not logical. It is understandable fear and defensiveness dressed as argumentation
I agree. The AIs will never be human. And if you believe only humans can make art, songs, drawings, ideas, whatever, then rock on
Could a machine have come up with an idea as World changing as what.three.words ?
That doesn’t mean true AI isn’t possible. Which isn’t about being human either.
The problem is the terrible quasi-flared baggy jeans. If those were skinny jeans he'd look highly cool
@janemerrick23: RT @theipaper: Boris Johnson is planning to tell the House of Commons privileges committee that he was advised everything was with… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1615279569635778561
Might just work...
The reality is that there are no consequence choice free choices for transgender kids; it is about balancing risks and benefits.
The reality is also that many of those teens wouldn't get a consultation and referral for treatment before they turn 18 anyway, given the length of waiting lists.
It processes super-cleverly a huge amount of information. The transition from computers back in the '60s to Apple Watches now. Amazing. But it doesn't think. It calculates.
It doesn't feel grief, elation, joy, sadness, hope, despair, disappointment, hunger, longing. All the feelings, for example, that a day on PB brings to its contributors.
The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) said existing studies of the drugs were small and "subject to bias and confounding".
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56601386.amp
Is AI just a sophisticated tool? Are the arguments over whether it can produce art similar to the arguments there used to be over whether photography could be art?
Will we one day accept AI as a judge of how good a piece of art is? Allow AI to tell us which bit of the gazillions of bits of art it has itself produced we should give our attention to?
If AI creates loads of the content that AI is trained on, will pop eat itself?
How come, if AI is already involved in the pop songs we listen to, pop songs (according to you) have declined rapidly from a peak some decades ago? Or are we in for a new golden age far surpassing Tom Jones singing EMF as AI gets into its stride?
I get it. It's boring. I get it. Enuff
Bridgewater bus crash. Thoughts to all involved:
https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2023/01/17/hinkley-workers-injured-after-double-decker-bus-topples-over/
Possibly designed by some form of AI.
I have a pair of Crockett and Jones like this. Not dissimilar
https://www.brogue.ch/shop/crockett-jones-fairford/
Studies of persistance of a childhood transgender identity find levels of anything from 2% to around 40% persisting with the transgender identity into adulthood. Badly needs more good quality research to understand it better. But a the broad evidence is that a majority at least of children who question their gender will not go on to transition long term, which is an important thing to recognise.
ETA: Health warning on those persistance figures - a lot of older studies were showing the lower figures, newer ones tend to show higher. The fact is there isn't really a very good estimate.