Creativity isn’t the same thing as drawing or painting or whatever. Being mechanically gifted at manipulating an instrument to produce certain output isn’t reflective of one’s creativity. There are plenty of very creative people who are bad at drawing etc. Ai art empowers those people to transform their ideas into reality
Mechanical skill at manipulating a tool like a brush is not in any way correlated with artistic talent. Creating and imagining the meaningful concepts and transposing them into reality to convey emotional and intellectual meaning is a reflection of artistic quality. Not how good someone is at drawing. If AI can empower person’s to transposing their ideas into reality then it should be encouraged and widely adopted
If you aren’t artistically talented, whether through lack of ability or through disability, then AI is significantly better at turning an idea into existing art than using a pencil/paintbrush/pen
Coming up with the idea is the art, as is transposing that idea into reality. If ai can transpose your idea into reality more effectively than any other artform then it should be utilized for such purpose
The point is that the system itself is the issue. Calling out specific reasons for that is fine if you do so to call attention to its presence as the bigger systemic threat. But debating if one effect of capitalism is worse than another effect ignores the fact that we should be focusing on capitalism as a whole
AI can be bad only because capitalism is bad. Address the root cause
Yes they did. And all of this is the same as what was said about photography and the invention of the camera and its utilization as art.
Photography is art. Film is art. Digital media is art. CGI is art. AI art is art.
You may not like it. But most people didn’t like those other new forms at first either. And they stopped being afraid of change and new things and learned to love it. The same will occur here. It is inevitable and impossible to oppose or resist
This is progress. And it will continue to accelerate regardless of whether or not you approve of it
System A is bad
System A produced Product 1 and Product 2
Product 1 and Product 2 are therefore bad because they were produced through System A
Criticizing Product 2 without criticizing Product 1 is an incomplete analysis; and criticizing either Product is foolish because System A is the cause of the issue
System A must be destroyed in order to prevent it from creating new Products that will be bad, and to undo the badness of the existing Products.
System A is capitalism
you’re buying into a system that exploits workers for your own convenience
The electronic device you used to make this post was also made by exploiting wage laborers for the benefit of capitalists. Yet, you found that device to be so convenient that you still bought and used it anyway. The same could be said for all of the other goods and services that you use.
Perhaps you should remove the beam from your eye before pointing out the splinter in anothers
Extrajudicial killing is bad no matter which side it is
No it isn’t, unless you think the Sons of Liberty were bad. And if it wasn’t for them there wouldn’t be a United States to begin with. This country was founded through targeted murders and terror campaigns waged against a structural oppressor. It’s literally what it means to be an American
The people who have been killed by the American health insurance industry, for one
You can use this for any example of self defense though. If we accept that the CEO represented an imminent threat to Luigi and to others, then the self defense was justified. The same as how it is justified for you to murder someone who is pointing a gun at your head and is moments away from killing you. You don’t need to wait for a trial in that case.
The idea here is that the US health insurance system represents a constant and ceaseless threat to the entire population; and, because industries like them write our laws, lawsuits against them are impractical. There have been legal challenges to the US Healthcare system; none have resulted in structural change. Given this, the actions of Luigi (or whoever did it) are the only remaining choice left to protect the American people from this deadly threat
Although I suppose emigration to a social democracy such as Sweden is also an option. But that isn’t feasible for most people. And Sweden/Norway/Finland/Denmark/etc would soon ban immigrants from the US if hundreds of millions of Americans decided to suddenly move there
Some of those people are looking at a life of medical debt induced misery for themselves and family
Right, but it benefits our ruling class for the working class to have an extremely financially precarious existence. Makes it harder for them to pay attention, help each other, start unions, rise up, etc if they’re constantly focused on their immediate circumstances rather than the big picture.
Smartphone addiction also aids in this
The framing for this is that murder is bad; however there are exceptions to that. One such exception is that self defense of oneself or self defense of another provides a (morally and legally) justified basis for murder. If someone is trying to murder you or someone else, and you murder that person to prevent this, then you have engaged in self defense, which is justified.
The argument is that there is insufficent evidence to demonstrate that Luigi was the person who committed the murder at issue. However, even if it can be proved that Luigi did in fact commit this murder, the argument is that it was justified as an act of self defense to protect himself/others from being killed by the decedent’s actions. This requires viewing violence as something that is structural and systemic, and not just direct and immediately physical. Under the former approach, Luigi engaged in self defense; under the latter, he did not.
The American legal system generally only recognizes the latter as a valid legal defense. But this is irrelevant to the moral question of whether it was justified; and, even to the legal question, we can ask why our system does not recognize structural violence as criminal violence. The answer to that lies in who writes the laws, or, rather, who pays for the laws to be written. All nations have a ruling class who are the principal beneficiaries of the legal system; the US is no different
The bear metaphor was obviously thinly veiled racism/xenophobia from the start. Lots of conservative/moderate women who are terrified of anyone who isn’t white or who is “illegal”