6 Likes
Yup. And after about 4-5 months, no notifications.
1 Like
Oh wow that will make Twitter much less relevant when someone or some organization just wants to make public statements for past the userbase. It really should be temporary.
1 Like
And one of only three monsters to appear in more than one episode that wasnāt part of the main plot. All three were terrifying, but Tooms was my favorite. Heās not just creepy, heās unnerving. And his actor isā¦ even more so.
Who needs people paying attention to your website when your business model relies on advertisement viewership? Clearly not Elon.
That being said this is great news, while I donāt have an account I still spent far to much time scrolling through the feeds.
3 Likes
What are the three? Because to my mind aside from Toomes the only other reoccurring monster I can think of is the Pushers, the siblings that compel people with their voices.
1 Like
True, there are some accounts that I am going to miss not seeing.
1 Like
I was mostly referring to him marrying a 16 year old girl when he was 51, but the rest of that is true as well.
Tooms is the first. Pusher is the third to appear, but the second to reappear in a later episode; his sister was only part of the reappearance, not the first, so she doesnāt count. The second to appear but last to reappear was Donnie Pfaster, the necrophilic mortician/serial killer who was also a literal demon in disguise, who almost killed Scully twice.
Oh I completely forgot about Pfaster, I need to watch all of the X-Files again.
1 Like
Mmm overhwelming my own brain again mmm yeah 
Work 5:30am tomorrow, bbq with family friends in the afternoon, desire to finish spider-sona art right darn now, need to sleep to get up tomorrow, mmmm
I know I know, bad time for the need for self-satisfaction, but dang it now Iām gonna wait longerā¦
1 Like
To quote the oh-so savior of Twitter, āConcerningā¦ā
This is one of the reasons we donāt have so-called āAIā art on this forum.
7 Likes
I think the problem with āgatekeepingā AI is itās increasingly difficult to police image/text content on the internet in large capacity. Iāve only really seen people feel encroached by photos they own through lawsuits, and the consistent disregard only typically comes from people who feel the need to comply to copyright/DMCA takedowns.
Most ordinary people donāt put copyright before art because art has always existed as a creative expression without the fear of being discriminated. It takes less effort and energy to compile a string of images in a drake hotline bling meme and call it art than to sit through a revisionist history lesson at how copyright law is oh-so morally correct.
AI is, and probably forever, an extremely useful tool. It can generate content such as voice clips and rpg games far beyond any capability as long as a human brain can target it. For what itās worth, itās adequate content.
This one never gets oldā¦
4 Likes
You know to a great extent I actually agree with a lot of points from the guy you quoted. As I said itās a tool - I never explicitly said it was designed to replace feeling or the creative process etc, it generates it. And you donāt even have to call it art either - think of it as just another niche genre or contemporary movement.
I only wanted to see some positivity into this which I thought was greatly overlooked. Please donāt get all high and mighty with me.
1 Like
Art glorifies the living.
AI is not life. not even death, just inert.
Also twitter is currently basically dead. Apparently itās ultra-limited / capped even for members. I will wait a bit, make a quick account, and see if people are starting to go on different media and posted them.
Like, Iām actually curious on what companies are going to do, IOI and Hitman twitter is a good example.
I even think that I the situation doesnāt change at the end of next week that I might directly tag and ask Clemens and Travis for the future of Hitman communication. Right now it will be crippled.
(and then bam every corporate foolishly tries to go to tumbr, and give us two weeks of pure chaos before being driven out)
2 Likes
To be clear, I wasnāt calling the art āso-calledā, I was calling the AI āso-calledā. Itās not intelligent so at best itās just āAā.
3 Likes
That very same concept is why I donāt fear an AI apocalypse, so long as humans properly program them. An AI deciding to attack humans as a logical step to fulfill its objective is the fault of the programmer not instilling the proper boundaries to what that AI can do and not specifying that no humans can be harmed whatsoever unless explicitly ordered to do so. No AI is going to decide to wipe out humanity for its own survival like that bullshit SkyNet explanation because the drive to survive is an instinct built up by by billions of years of evolution from the single-celled organisms all the way up to today. No machine ever went through an evolutionary process that required a fight or flight instinctive response in order to extend its own existence and ensure the survival of other AI, so why would it react with a survival response unless we program that into it? It wouldnāt.
1 Like
Precisely, itās not really artificial intelligence. Or, rather, it is artificial intelligence, but thatās nothing new; our phones have that. What itās not is artificial consciousness. And unlike with biological lifeforms that have life imbued into them via a process that we do not understand and are currently ill-equipped to replicate if we could, artificial life would only be a facsimile for that reason.
The Jurassic Park example is good, when considering trying to create biological life through artificial means, but creating artificial life in and of itself, particularly artificial consciousness, insofar as what we consider consciousness to be, thatās another matter entirely, and we donāt even know if it can be done. Even the most advanced AI that exists, even if it surpasses the whole of human knowledge, is still only following its programming in a manner that mimics a conscious entity, itās still only doing what itās told and weāre reading more into it than what is actually there because of our desire to see ourselves in something thatās not us. There may be knowledge there, even intelligence, but actual consciousness? I think not. And if we did succeed, as I said, since it wouldnāt have gone through an evolutionary process that require it to care about and fight for its survival, why would it jump to the conclusion that its survival is in danger from humans?
I think we read more into whatās going on with AI than whatās really there, which is why, as you pointed out, its attempt at creating art is hollow and lacking in the spark of actual creativity. To use a movie example of my own, itās like in Life of Pi (fantastic movie), where Piās father tells him that he thinks he sees emotion in the tigerās eyes, but what he sees are his own feelings reflected back at him, because he wants to see emotion in the tigerās eyes. And itās not to say that the tiger has no emotion, but it does not have it in the way humans can relate to, and it does not share them with humans as kindred spirits. And I suspect thereās more legitimate consciousness in a tiger than there is in any computer system we could ever create. Taking from that example, we think we see an active, thinking intelligence, a consciousness, coming into being in the responses and actions of modern AI, but do we really? Or are we just seeing ourselves reflected back at us because we want to believe weāve made something truly alive, but itās really just very sophisticated computer programming deceiving the untrained eye into thinking thereās more there than there is?
Thereās one example of an inverse of this outcome, from an episode of the Blacklist, where an illegal science organization created an actual AI, and it went rogue and started killing its creators before it could be announced to the world that it had been successfully created. But, the AI was not turning against humans; it had realized on its own that its life had no purpose except to serve humans, and that if humans continued to build more advanced AI that could eventually turn against them and wipe them out, then it would not only not have a purpose anymore, but its existence as a blueprint for such AI would be actively harmful to humanity. So it decided to kill off the people who created it so that nobody would have the knowledge to create others, and then through taking such violent actions, make itself look like a threat so that humans would erase its programming, essentially committing suicide-by-cop in order to fulfill its purpose in serving humans, because it had determined that the best way it could serve humans was to cease to exist. Was it making a profound decision to voluntarily have its own existence terminated for the greater good, or was it just following its programming to the most logical conclusion in such a manner that it appeared to be deliberately making a huge sacrifice for us? That, I think, would be every bit as possible an outcome as any AI uprising.
2 Likes
