It's them risking arrest, not you, so I would say they are the ones who get to say whether it's a worthwhile use or not, wouldn't you?
mindlesscrollyparrot
joined 10 months ago
As far as I can tell, Microsoft tried to hold off these anti-trust lawsuits by intentionally making the interoperability and feature-parity between its products shockingly bad.
You've shifted from "destroyed" to "damaged", I notice. The varnish of The Hay Wain was damaged, but the painting was not. The frames of various other paintings were damaged. The glass of The Rokeby Venus was damaged. Nothing compared to what Mary Richardson did in 1914.
It is literally Just Stop Oil's point that people will start wringing their handkerchiefs at these actions but they are doing nothing about the climate emergency which threatens all our lives. You think it will make a difference if these people vote for different parties? The current parties are already doing worse than nothing - Sunak is opening up new oil and gas fields.
It is not climate protesters' responsibility to persuade people to save the planet that we all live on. It is up to everybody, and too many people are not doing their share. Just Stop Oil have a right to be angry. We should all be angry.
Destroyed? Let's talk about that.
As you know, Stonehenge has been standing in the rain for 3,000 years.
Following the industrial revolution, fossil fuel emissions made that acid rain. It attacked every cultural artifact standing outdoors for decades.
I think that the people who did that belong behind bars.
But they aren't destroying them, are they? The stones have been standing in the rain and snow for 3,000 years. Some powder paint is just going to wash off the next time it snows. It's not like they've taken a jackhammer to the Heel Stone.
They'll probably publish the abridged version, sadly. The full version reads, as we well know:
Thou shall not commit adultery but, if thou doest, thou shalt pay off the other woman so that it harmeth not thy chances in the presidential election. Nor shall it turn thy supporters against thee when they heareth of it.
If you make a painting now, it wouldn't be based on those thousands and thousands of paintings since, although you have seen them, you apparently do not remember them. But, if you did, and you made a painting based on one, and did not acknowledge it, you would indeed be a bad artist.
The bad part about using the art of the past is not copying. The problem is plagiarism.
Inspiration is absolutely a thing. When Constable and Cezanne sat at their easels, a large part of their inspiration was Nature. When Picasso invented Cubism, he was reacting to tradition, not following it. There are also artists like Alfred Wallis, who are very unconnected to tradition.
I think your final sentence is actually trying to say that we have advances in tools, not inspiration, since the Lascaux caves are easily on a par with the Sistine Chapel if you allow for the technology? And that AI is simply a new tool? That may be, but does the artist using this new tool control which images it was trained on? Do they even know? Can they even know?
Maybe the AIs should mix their own pigments as well, instead of taking all the other artists' work and grinding that up.
Last year, Tesla announced that they had improved with autonomous emergency braking system, to go 'beyond standard AEB functionality'. And yet, here we have a story where a Tesla drove straight into a stationary vehicle and, according to the cop, didn't slow down.
Yes, the driver should have been paying attention, but why did the AEB do nothing?
It concerns me that the article blames this on El Nino and continued burning of fossil fuels.
I'm sure those are contributing, but what about the wildfires that we saw last year? They are a feedback effect (higher temperatures makes fires more likely; fires release CO2; CO2 increases temperatures). If feedback effects have started, then everybody needs to panic.
"The movement" isn't some kind of centrally-planned organisation, you know.