its 3am and i laughed my ass off. why?

I forgive 'em cuz watt hours are a disgusting unit in general

Power over time, × time, is just power! kWh are just joules (J) with extra steps! Screw kWh, I will die on this hill!!! Raaah

Master manipulator. Needs to be contained

Ty for feedback :>

Your paragraph read well. I definitely agree – grammar with risks, outside of hyper-formal sitches, is just stylized diction. ChatGPT could scarcely come up with an e.e. cummings poem (just tested now, it never gets the style about right), nor dare to abuse parentheses, nor remove cruft for conciseness (e.g. to start a sentence with “Kind of changed” instead of “This kind of changes” for compression (woot)). It’s a “wrong” but not quite “wrong”, and I’m glad that “riskless” manages to carry that feeling

And I edit a lot too :) it’s the “post-email-send clarity” effect

Make your data useless or wrong.

More passively, there’s probably an oddly large amount of John Does born on January 1, 2000 ;)

More offensively, anti-image-gen data poisoning such as Nightshade exists. It’s well-defended against IIRC so hopefully someone can Cunningham’s Law correct me. And this is also more solo of a movement (as opposed to gaining mass support for something)

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/327:_Exploits_of_a_Mom

SQL sanitization joke. Won’t affect most databases today.

edit: updated accordingly for clarity

Ah, I mean proper grammar as in formal, largely riskless grammar. For example, AI wouldn’t connect

monolingual + educated + have access to technology

with pluses, like a human would.

Not sure how I’d phrase that though. Maybe “perfect, risklessly formal grammar” as I just tried to call it? (i.e. if AI trainers consider using +‘es a “risk”, as opposed to staying formal and spick n’ span clean).

Perfect grammar is humanly possible but there is some scrutiny that can be applied to GPT-style grammar, especially in the context of the casually-toned web (where 100%ed grammar isn’t strictly necessary!). Just… defining this state well is tough to me. :|

I believe Inkscape has some interaction with tkinter, which binds python to Tcl/tk

https://github.com/flathub/org.inkscape.Inkscape

Alpine: musl + Christmas 💪🎄🎁🎉

I… I put effort in…

Edit: What about an ivory leg?

I’m not sure I agree but I’m happy to discuss! :)

Why are you calling my statement “selective memory” (am I intentionally excluding something?), and what do you mean by “way worse”? Do you consider unskilled art as not art at all (i.e. “so-called”)?

What I was trying to say, is that on social media, skilled artists formerly dominated attention (likes, upvotes) because viewers wanted well-constructed, pleasing-to-the-eye artwork. I wasn’t trying to say that they were the only art posters (sorry for my wording!). Continuing, now that AI is in the arena, “technically-decent” art is no longer the lower bound for pleasurable-to-see – now, viewers are more partial to knowing that a human was vulnerable when they expressed themselves with art.

It’s an intensification of internet-ugly aesthetic, which Douglas (2014) called "an imposition of messy humanity upon an online world of smooth gradients, blemish correcting Photoshop, and AutoCorrect” (p. 314). Now, online, handmaking art at all is a declaration of humanity, because you could corporately fake something full-colored and intricate, but arguably soulless, with lower effort.

Of course, I’ll try to take it from your perspective. I’ve seen really bad human art (I like art!), and I’ve seen less-artifacted AI art (have you ever seen Even_Adder’s generations on lemmy.dbzer0? they don’t have the overshading issue at all). Of course, some may disagree that the latter is art (is art only human expression?), but supposing I do consider the latter art, my point still stands – viewers are more on the lookout for genuineness now.

Happy to see what you think!

References

• Douglas, N. (2014). It’s supposed to look like shit: The internet ugly aesthetic. Journal of Visual Culture, 13(3), 314–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470412914544516

Disclosure: I’ve done very little UI/UX.

Google’s Material Design (wikipedia) is much more widely-adopted across OSes/Flutter/the web (see how many websites have that dropshadow topbar and ≡?); Microsoft’s Fluent (wikipedia) is Windows-first, but is usable anywhere.

Both are based on responding to user actions. Fluent uses lightup acrylic (translucent) canvases (e.g. hover? border glowy.)

while Google’s Material uses paper-esque whitespace, navbars, dropshadows, and round corners. (e.g. scrolling? dropshadow appears on nav)

Think Microsoft Teams vs. Google Drive.

They’re both full-fledged but Material You is way more common judging by places such as the F-Droid ecosystem on Android. As for which is “better”, Material You supposedly has better colorscheme flexibility since it ‘wants’ to adapt to e.g. user wallpapers. But other than that it’s really just preference (or whether relevant tooling exists :P). I know some devs use Material You for a predictable, unified look across Android apps, while others bend them to their will to reduce animations or whatnot.

If you’re designing something, make sure you keep your own self in the mix too. Breezy Weather uses Material Design, but it’s more customized to have a unique feel than, say, TrackerControl (which also uses Material).

edit: Please be nice to each other! :(

Lots of downvotes in this reply chain. Not to be a “I don’t wanna be either side” kinda guy but AI isn’t all bad and isn’t all good either. (Greys!)

Merry Christmasing should be a genuine hug. Even if this was made by a homegrown open-weight open-dataset inference model, it’s nearly 100% low-effort generated – holidays need the human aspect, no? Covering yourself up too much in AI takes away from the humanness with corporate diction, and people need evidence of risktaking genuineness nowadays.

On the other hand, AI is definitely useful… but elsewhere. It’s not strictly anti-human even if conglomerates are using it that way, which I think you agree on. Wading through HOA using local NLP setups is human. Looking through a Mandarin thread when typical translation sucks, is human.

But there are domains for its use and there is ethical stuff to work on. This post just doesn’t fit the domain too well, as others agree…

Is that 7/8 time? (12) (3) (12) (12). Stallman’s taking his own path even when compiling a song

Merry chrisatms

I love all the pleasantly deep answers in this thread.

For my input: I’m everything I ever was, all at once.

You know how lenses refract over each other at the optometrist? Or how colors combine when you stack transparent cups in the washer? That’s me. I have parts from everyone I ever met, and parts from everyone I ever was. There’s no mask, even if I focus on one part of the mosaic in a meeting vs. another when I nerd out w/ a buddy – it’s all equally me.

I’m not Shrek though. Onions have layers, but I’m prismatic glass, chips and dips and all.

I disagree with this sentiment; I’m inclined to believe that AI has actually lowered the bar for meaning.

Before AI, typically only skilled artists drew pictures for the web. But now that AI is making art that’s less meaningful than crayon pictures, there’s the growing sentiment of

I’d rather see a crayon picture than AI slop.

which could actually mean more people have the ability to go on and artify.

Of course this is anecdotal; it’s the reason I started drawing again :)

NOOOOOO HOW DID I GET SHITTYMORPHED ON LEMMY

Only if there’s too many is it a worry. I use it now and then bc I LOVE things in threes (I’m not Ben Affleck I swear), but…

in the above, the tricolon bonanza is insane – how can you fit that many in such a short text?

You probably don’t need to cut down :)

Sorry for the wall of text again c: