Is that on the 17% joke rate?

Right that’s why no other country had dreams of home ownership.

American exceptionalism really did a number on you guys!

You just haven’t tried it with the latest release of this fork of Plasma.

That would be great in an ideal world, but there’s just no reason to think that they should be able to because the two concepts are simply orthogonal. What you can make a living off is determined by what other people need and want (with the exception of farming), which is completely different from what you want to do. Fundamentally, no individual is going to pay you (or give you food, or whatever) in return for doing something that they don’t value.

The only way to get away from that paradigm is UBI or something like it.

Would I prefer to live in a world where my shitty abilities in music, art and writing were enough to keep myself fed and clothed? Yes! But we don’t and AI isn’t changing that. If we want to move towards that it’s economic changes we need to make.

Note that this is still true even if you a well-funded arts council that funds artists as a public good, because while you might not be a slave to what individuals or “the masses” want, you’re still a slave to what the arts council is willing to fund - what it sees as a public good. And if people as a whole simply don’t value some forms of art that much, there’s a very limited extent to which public funding will make up for that. If that’s too abstract, if my art passion is recording classical music arranged for the human butt, I’m going to struggle to sell that to ordinary people, as well as struggle to get a grant to fund my passion.

Fundamentally I think this question arises because there is a general sense that people ought to be able to make a living from art. But this has - except for very few people - never been the case, because lots of people enjoy making art, but society as a whole does not value it highly enough to support all those people in doing it.

Artisanal things are great, but because they take so much more time for a person to make, fewer people can have them - realised in our society as them being more expensive, but to be clear this is due to the fundamental issue of it not being possible to make as many for the same input of human time.

So, is it worth it to have a table made by a master craftsman versus a table produced in an IKEA factory, when the societal result is that some people just can’t afford a table - or they can, but the tradeoff is they can’t have something else? We are not a post-scarcity society, these are real questions.

Is it worth rewinding the green revolution and starving half the world population who depends on the higher crop yields due to modern agriculture?

The whole point is that you can still make things. What you cannot do is something 99% of people have never been able to do, that is: feed yourself by doing something that you would still do if feeding yourself didn’t depend on it.

Well, kinda. Their cost of production is lower partly because they don’t have to pay an artist enough to feed themselves. Your costs are always lower when you don’t pay for stuff that those playing by the rules do.

Ok but this is a joke, not an instruction on how to behave in real life.

Oh sorry lol

What makes you think those artists are going to be replaced by AI though? I don’t think people who buy art off a local artist are gonna go “you know what, let’s just print off this Midjourney shit”? I don’t at all.

I actually don’t think most people put art on their walls at all. The people who do, value a human connection in the art, not just something that looks cool (if you don’t care about the ai look).

They’re taking advantage of the ability to do so with modern cameras and TVs because a dark look communicates something - a dark mood for example. It contrasts with other shows or scenes.

It stands out to me when a scene is supposed to be at night but obviously has a 100ft light tower just off camera. Toning it down looks good.

Yeah, many differences, one of which is that the further employs far more people. Another is that the latter is not going to dissolve itself to be replaced by AI when the former fires artists to do that.

There is already very little market for the kind of art we all care about, so maybe we should worry less about the marketability of art.

What about the rest of my comment or hell , sentence 🙄

Right, so if making the plot and lore obvious in a book is fine, it’s also fine in a game. Using pejoratives like “spoonfeeding” criticises this without giving any reason.

From games are particularly bad because most of the lore is on item descriptions that are often themselves locked behind random drops and easily missed questlines. This is not good world building, this is purposefully obscure world building. People mistake “hard to put together” for quality, but it’s the opposite - making this stuff harder to get makes it worse, because players are less likely to get it! If you feel too communicate the lore to most players, that’s not good!

I’ve never said Wikipedia should deny the genocide in Gaza and you know it.

You are not a serious commenter; goodbye.

You can consider anything to be something it’s not, so yes.

Only if they’re an insufferable twat

Hehe

I, like 99% of people who enjoy creating stuff, am never going to make money from it. Worrying about that 1% of people is just insane, and really, the small fraction of those people who truly get to be creative, rather than slaving at producing someone’s corporate vision, are going to be fine anyway.

This reply that the other person also made is just crazy to me. Isn’t lemmy, by and large, anti-capitalist? Why should the ability to make money off something even matter? Are you upset that people who really enjoy laying bricks will be mostly out of work if 3D-printed houses or some other technology replaces traditional building? Technology that obsoletes jobs is always a good thing for society; if the fruits of that technology are only enjoyed by a tiny fraction of society, that is a problem with how society is organised, not with technology.

Technology means the time you spend doing laundry and dishes is likely a tenth of what it was 100 years ago.

The reason AI, specifically, can do images and language but not load the dishwasher and washing machine is because those latter tasks are far harder and have worse consequences if you do them wrong. If the AI fucks up creating an image, so what? You tell it to make a new one. If it gets them all wrong then so what? You give up on it. If the AI robot fucks up loading the dishwasher, it breaks all your plates and then the dishwasher. If the AI robot fucks up doing the laundry, it tears all your shirts in half and smashes the washing machine.

You’re not actually paying attention to what I’m writing. What part of “you need a reason to think that someone is lying” do you not understand, or not agree with? (I mean, if you did agree with it, you would describe your reasons for believing that UK MPs are lying in this case, right?)

With the invasion of Ukraine, you are trying to cheat, because the question there is not really about motivation but about the facts. The fact of the matter is that there aren’t significant numbers of Nazis in Ukraine to “de-nazify” so whatever Russia’s true motivation, its invasion is unjustified.

But I’m not disagreeing with you that the OSA is unjustified; I’m saying that the motivation isn’t some insane religious conspiracy to ban porn. In comparison, Russia’s motivation in Ukraine is to create a buffer zone with a puppet regime. We can see that this is the motivation, because that’s what is consistent with their actions. Zelenskyy has offered to step down as part of a fair negotiated peace, so regime change cannot be Russia’s motivation. Russia has suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties, so the protection of Russian-speakers cannot be Russia’s motivation.

So we have ample reason to believe that Russia has a motivation other than what it states. Do you see how this works?

What reason is there to believe British MPs’ motivations are what you say they are?