naraku360

I think I might actually enjoy getting emotionally invested in a story only to realize it was complete ass when I sober up....

Must suck to watch Adult Swim in 2024.

It was a conversation about whether or not Nintendo-devoloped games and their 3rd party IPs have different content restrictions, which they obviously do. I'd said that an in-house IP like Mario or Zelda is going to be more safe than 3rd party, such as Xenoblade or Bayonetta. Bayonetta being obvious on the face of it, but as far as Xenoblade goes, the way it handles mature subjects like death, trauma, religion, etc more openly than a 1st party Nintendo game can be expected to. Their argument was that Majora's Mask is upfront about death and trauma, and that redeads scare kids. That being in response to having said that Nintendo games are going to be less direct in their approach if it is tackled. I don't think any of that changes that Zelda is aimed at a younger audience, and you aren't going to see as intense of depictions even in the grittier titles, like Majora's Mask.

The other day, someone told me I didn't know anything about Zelda because I referred to it as being a family-friendly series. I'm no Zelda expert, but............

It's so overwhelmingly sexual I don't know how they got away with it. I saw the uncensored version recently (subbed) and it really is bizarre Toonami even considered airing it in the first place, much less managed to squeeze it passed the censors.

Not sure Tenchi counts as a kid show. Most of that harem is made up of ancient space gods whose personalities revolve around molesting a 14 year old.

You can help. With, like, $700. That would fix my current state of mental decline.

This is supposed to be unpopular opinions.

Get a rental.

So, being used as a baby shaped squirt gun fired by my parent isn't an option?

Probably wouldn't have to pay me to do it. Remove the diaper, aim, and fire.

I knew it. Kagome's dad hates America. I mean, fair enough.

https://medium.com/@RuthHouston2/microsoft-bing-chatbot-loses-memory-becomes-totally-distraught-5ebcd9d0a5af @scoobdog I'm curious what your thoughts on this would be.

Sorry, you're such an easy target on this one.

He's the guy in every AI related sci-fi story who insists robots can't be sentient while a robot plainly demonstrates sentience on a regular basis right in front of him.

A word salad that evaded my point. How is telling it what to do not conveying your intent? This is such an absurd thing to suggest that I genuinely don't know how you can possibly make that point. It's actually incoherent. You're using a machine to convey your intentions. It being generated doesn't change that you input a command and got a result. YOU came up with the idea. It displays the idea. That's art. Again, this is an arbitrary rubric. Ignoring 99% of what I say to make firm declarations that don't address the question isn't an answer. It is functioning in response to your input, therefore it is objectively art.

You told it what to do. How is that not conveying intent? I feel like this is the most abstract, and therefore least useful, part of the post to respond to if we were to reply to a single part of it in isolation.

Another consideration is that we don't know what constitutes as sentience. I've been reluctant to call AI sentient in the past as well. But after watching this, I'm not fully comfortable with outright saying it isn't: Like, we can say what we will about it being merely imitation, but the reaction itself made me too uncomfortable to say that we know it isn't real. If it is pure imitation, the video was quite funny. But if you ask yourself, "What if we're wrong?" it becomes pretty disturbing.

How is that not art? I'm not sure what the relevance of providing sources is to whether something is considered art or not. The entire basis of copyright law is that you can use existing properties so long as it is transformative. If the AI transforms multiple pieces to create a new image, how does that differ from any other use of another person's work in a transformative way? This seems like a very arbitrary standard. When a Youtube video uses an array of images from a piece of media as a thumbnail to represent what the video is about, you wouldn't say "that's using an image from an existing thing, therefore it isn't art," would you? I'm not suggesting it's high art, but many people splice parts of copyrighted work into a new image for this very purpose without receiving any kind of scrutiny for it. It's functionally the same thing, and I would call the thumbnail a new art piece, so I see no reason that the use of AI to do the same would matter. You can call it lazy, and it often is; however, this assumes that art cannot be created in a lazy way, and that's simply not the case.

I know you didn't, but I've brought it up a few times in conversations that you've been involved in, so suggesting it's useless as an art form did strike me as pretty insensitive. The types of things I'd like to do artistically are generally outside my physical capability and AI is kind of the one option I feel I could realistically use to make up for it. It's just another conversation that throws the disabled under the bus.

........