Jump to content
UnevenEdge

Post your unpopular opinions here.


The_annoying_one

Recommended Posts

Two things regarding t-shirts

1. People wearing shirts with phrases look stupid. You're not making a bold statement you're trying to draw attention to yourself with unfunny humor while looking corny in the process. 

2. People wearing t-shirts or bands that don't listen to is cringey. Do I need to say more when you see that Nirvana logo shirt. Just stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, -Kudasai- said:

Two things regarding t-shirts

1. People wearing shirts with phrases look stupid. You're not making a bold statement you're trying to draw attention to yourself with unfunny humor while looking corny in the process. 

2. People wearing t-shirts or bands that don't listen to is cringey. Do I need to say more when you see that Nirvana logo shirt. Just stop.

I would read this while wearing a t-shirt with a humorous phrase on it.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just can bring myself to feel sorry for anyone who was a victim of some sort of scam. Every time I would hear stories of someone getting scammed out money I kept asking myself "how could someone fall for obvious bullshit like that?" And then it finally hit me. It's people being greedy for money willing to do some shit that they got business doing and getting caught up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The_annoying_one said:

The best song on an album should always be the last song on the album. Putting it anywhere else just kills the flow.

What quantifies as the best song? What the musician believes to be the best? What is the most popular with the public? You have to remember the most famous songs are released as singles after the full album is released. And especially these days with streaming platforms like Spotify, most people don't listen to full albums in the first place.

I think such an arrangement would make sense with a greatest hits albums, but the songs in those are usually arranged in chronological order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Insipid said:

What quantifies as the best song? What the musician believes to be the best? What is the most popular with the public? You have to remember the most famous songs are released as singles after the full album is released. And especially these days with streaming platforms like Spotify, most people don't listen to full albums in the first place.

I think such an arrangement would make sense with a greatest hits albums, but the songs in those are usually arranged in chronological order.

I was honestly just referring to whatever I consider to be the best song, which I realize probably completely nullifies my point here. 
This was another of my “unpopular opinions that just came to me randomly and I didn’t really take the time to flesh out. :LithiumSmileyLaugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2024 at 8:15 PM, [classic swim] said:

The people who actually still like Drawn Together seem to think the later shitposty episodes are bad when those are the most enjoyable. Captain Hero’s boring as fuck in the early episodes.

I know. That show should’ve had at least two more seasons full of episodes.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

American Fiction is complete ass. I'm trying to wrap my mind around how a movie against black stereotypes ends with a man who was against black stereotypes getting rich by perpetuating the most common black stereotype.

I fucking hate it and I have no idea how it's rated so high.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

popular business management/ self help books are mostly bullshit.

they fall into one of two categories

1. repackaging common sense into something that sounds like wisdom. (usually by being vague and obtuse.)

2. pushing toxic positivity. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2024 at 1:53 PM, -Kudasai- said:

Two things regarding t-shirts

1. People wearing shirts with phrases look stupid. You're not making a bold statement you're trying to draw attention to yourself with unfunny humor while looking corny in the process. 

2. People wearing t-shirts or bands that don't listen to is cringey. Do I need to say more when you see that Nirvana logo shirt. Just stop.

img_1_1716947439734.thumb.jpg.6554c70b46f667821f3272527d5521c1.jpg

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of miss being immature enough to relentlessly rip into people here when they definitely warrant it. Some people are far too dense and pompous to "kill with kindness."

There's someone I'd love to rant about, but it's been months since the last "well, fuck you too" incident, and this place won't really be worth the effort when the inevitable next one comes. It's not like being ruthless in calling them out for the asshole they are will do anything when their ego is so disproportionately large compared to the quality of the their character. I rarely interact with them, anyway.

So, here I am, impotently throwing shade into the night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanna at least show interest in improving. Everyone’s just their own person.

Can’t change whatever your sense of humor is. Can’t pick away at anyone’s ear just cuz they might not have patience for you. Sincerity’s a good thing to have but sometimes shit just doesn’t work for other people.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, naraku360 said:

I kind of miss being immature enough to relentlessly rip into people here when they definitely warrant it. Some people are far too dense and pompous to "kill with kindness."

There's someone I'd love to rant about, but it's been months since the last "well, fuck you too" incident, and this place won't really be worth the effort when the inevitable next one comes. It's not like being ruthless in calling them out for the asshole they are will do anything when their ego is so disproportionately large compared to the quality of the their character. I rarely interact with them, anyway.

So, here I am, impotently throwing shade into the night.

I'm sorry....I was just mad about the hands thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, André Toulon said:

I'm sorry....I was just mad about the hands thing

On the subject, though, it is frustrating that AI is very likely the one art form I can realistically use to make what I want to because of the sheer volume of disabilities that otherwise get in the way, so @scoobdog's comments were what really pissed me off in that thread since it's effectively telling me anything I make with genuine effort using it isn't real art. So from my perspective, I think it's fair to be upset at someone telling me I can't be a "real" artist because my disabilities prevent me from doing the kinds of art I would like to. It makes the suggestion that no AI art will ever be worth anything into a genuinely offensive sentiment.

But I'm not upset with you, nor him, over it since you're both capable of nuance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, naraku360 said:

It's not you.

Didn't know you were mad, though...?

....I wasn't, I was just trying to be nosey without acting nosey. I figured that would snowball into a dialogue and I'd figure out the real culprit....but no, I get what you're saying. 

I've just decided to be slightly annoying instead of a problem these days.

Edited by André Toulon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, André Toulon said:

....I wasn't, I was just trying to be nosey without acting nosey. I figured that would snowball into a dialogue and I'd figure out the real culprit....but no, I get what you're saying. 

I've just decided to to be slightly annoying instead of a problem gese days.

I'm trying to avoid stirring the pot with naming names. It's stuff that's gotten under my skin for a while, and on a plethora of subjects. I don't talk to them very often, regardless.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, naraku360 said:

I'm trying to avoid stirring the pot with naming names. It's stuff that's gotten under my skin for a while, and on a plethora of subjects. I don't talk to them very often, regardless.

I actually don't have any issues with people like us using AI, but I don't like that is becoming evident in shit like news, and other places where I expect the person talking to be knowledgeable.

Putting your face on an anime characters body is hardly a thing I care about (not saying that's what you do, just giving benign examples)

I just couldn't help myself with sponges and that's when I really realized I had a problem. He was so invested and I didn't even believe half the shit I was saying....but it made him sooooo mad and that was funny to me 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, André Toulon said:

I actually don't have any issues with people like us using AI, but I don't like that is becoming evident in shit like news, and other places where I expect the person talking to be knowledgeable.

Putting your face on an anime characters body is hardly a thing I care about (not saying that's what you do, just giving benign examples)

I just couldn't help myself with sponges and that's when I really realized I had a problem. He was so invested and I didn't even believe half the shit I was saying....but it made him sooooo mad and that was funny to me 

Yeah, AI stuff has really screwed with the state of the internet as a whole. I also get the economic problems with corporations acting like it's sophisticated enough to replace people en masse.

I don't really have a great deal of respect for the way it's often used to be as lazy and uninspired as possible. Like, I'm interested in using it as a way to make animation or the art for comics, but without human intervention, you can tell it was slapped together. It's just an art form in the early stages. I'd want to do things with much more personal involvement as opposed to having it do everything, like making things you traditionally would need millions of dollars without having to deal with massive companies that screw animators. It's going to replace Hollywood with a new flood of independent creators, and people can either learn to use it or not, but ultimately it is going to make the creation of art significantly more accessible, and I don't think that's a bad thing regardless of the existing issues of misuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, naraku360 said:

Why are you being so dismissive? It is a matter of disability, so this is rather gross in the lack of empathy.

Slow your role, my dude.  You’re wildly misrepresenting what I said:  I did not explicitly or implicitly  direct my argument to AI uses for accessibility.  Like you said, there’s nuance to my argument that wasn’t appropriate for that thread, so…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

Slow your role, my dude.  You’re wildly misrepresenting what I said:  I did not explicitly or implicitly  direct my argument to AI uses for accessibility.  Like you said, there’s nuance to my argument that wasn’t appropriate for that thread, so…

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.

Edited by naraku360
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, naraku360 said:

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.

But it’s not insensitive.  You’re conflating the tool with the art.

I’ve said it before: AI doesn’t create art, it’s one tool used to express oneself.  If you show an AI generated image without both publishing all of your original prompts and properly crediting the sources the AI uses to generate the product, that image isn’t art.  Disability or not, the rules for creating art are always the same; you’re expressing your feelings through the piece, so it stands to reason that you need to distinguish between your own thoughts and the tool expressing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

But it’s not insensitive.  You’re conflating the tool with the art.

I’ve said it before: AI doesn’t create art, it’s one tool used to express oneself.  If you show an AI generated image without both publishing all of your original prompts and properly crediting the sources the AI uses to generate the product, that image isn’t art.  Disability or not, the rules for creating art are always the same; you’re expressing your feelings through the piece, so it stands to reason that you need to distinguish between your own thoughts and the tool expressing them.

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.

Edited by naraku360
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

But it’s not insensitive.  You’re conflating the tool with the art.

I’ve said it before: AI doesn’t create art, it’s one tool used to express oneself.  If you show an AI generated image without both publishing all of your original prompts and properly crediting the sources the AI uses to generate the product, that image isn’t art.  Disability or not, the rules for creating art are always the same; you’re expressing your feelings through the piece, so it stands to reason that you need to distinguish between your own thoughts and the tool expressing them.

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.

Edited by naraku360
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, naraku360 said:

How is that not art?

Because it’s not communicating your intent.  Art is a language, no different than English or Japanese.  Even if it’s just a landscape, you’re communicating your impression of a specific time and place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

Because it’s not communicating your intent.  Art is a language, no different than English or Japanese.  Even if it’s just a landscape, you’re communicating your impression of a specific time and place.

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.

Edited by naraku360
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, naraku360 said:

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.

Bro… what did I just say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...