JackRiddle

Ideally they hit them at the same time so there is no time to plan anything

Right, of course, we should never try anything new. All things should stay as they are always, never put faith in a better future. I guess I am a monarchist now or whatever.

I know I am not being totally fair here. I know "go vote" is the advice liberals often give and that electoralism gets used as a way to divert from direct action. Voting will not change the system. It will not get us out of the clusterfuck we are in. It is not a substitute for action. I understand your perspective in this. Voting for someone who will not do anything about the fascist policies that are being introduced and who supports an active genocide feels bad, it feels like buying into a broken system and giving it legitimacy by your participation. But it frustrates me. Because people who discourage voting are playing into fascists hands. Because anarchists, marxists, syndicalists, communalists and the like cannot effect change by voting. But fascists can. Fascists already have enough power to sway the system in their favour, to use the government for their ends. Voting is not change, it is harm reduction. It is trying to cede as little ground as possible to fascists for as much time as possible, buying time to effect real change before we are all disappeared and shipped off to some concentration camp somewhere. Taking real political action gets exponentially harder everytime the fascists get more power. And in the last election, they have gotten a lot more power.

Of course there are naive anarchists, but there exist workable and well-defined systems of anarchism that have seen some forms of success, and there are theories on anarchism beyond "shit will regulate itself". I would reccomend picking up some of the work of Murray Bookchin on municipal libertarianism an communalism to see such a theory.

Right, yeah, I am a liberal, Of course. I am a cis, heterosexual liberal who does nothing but tweet and whose only effective political action is voting once every two years. I believe that we should never do anything but vote, which is exactly the sentiment I expressed in my comment. I said "we should vote and only vote and do nothing else because the market will solve itself and the system would function perfectly if only we were to participate". These are my words, and they are what I believe. Yes. Very much so. Very much so.

My actions are inspired by the tactics of smart active anarchists because I am a liberal and not an anarchist and I assumed you were inactive because you did not vote rather than assuming you missed one of the venues of activism that is exceedingly easy to reach. Because I am a liberal.

I said nothing about being nice. I said you should take action. All people should take all possible actions they reasonably can to prevent this kind of shit. That includes voting. Being complacent is not an option.

Enjoy your real trans genocide then, I guess.

Sure the entire political system is being dismantled and nobody has to vote next time around, but at least you didn't vote for a genocide that is only getting worse because you didn't.

I disagree with your points fundamentally, and I believe the difference is in how we interpret both art and the creation of art. I do not believe that a prompter is able to convey enough intent for it to count.
This could be compared to someone commisioning a drawing for, for example, a story. The story and direction they give, that would be the prompt or what lead to it, in this case, would display their intent. The drawing itself, however, would not display their artistic vision, but that of the artist they commissioned to draw it. Now, they might coördinate with said artist to get their visions to align as closely as possible, but as I said, models have no vision, and so none can be aligned with. You could 'find' an image generated by such a model that aligns with what you wish for, but there is no intent behind it.

The environmental damage is inherent to the technology, as matrix multiplications are inherently not very efficient, and any given model runs a lot of them. Running a model at home seems more efficient because you only generate for yourself, but if every user of diffusion where to do this, the cost would not be better.

I do not understand what you see in the video you sent me. It does not, to me, seem to carry a message. Sure, some of it's imagery can be aesthetically pleasing, but I cannot interpret it as carrying any meaning.

Oh, and dw, I did not mean to call you stupid, I think the ideas about art you have specifically are stupid. That does not necessarily carry over to any other part of you.

I judge art on the basis of three things:
The intent of the artist,
The context surrounding the art,
My own interpretation of the art

A stable diffusion model is not much more than a set of statistical functions executed over a large array of numbers. Therefore, the model cannot have intent.
The use of the model to generate images damages the environment, makes use of work made by artists who, by design, cannot be credited for said work, and no or very little artistic effort went into the generation. Therefore, the context is pretty loathesome.
The third point depends on the image, although I find that most images do not have much in the way of creativity or artistic direction, and come off as "bland", "samey", "wrong". The fact that there is no intent makes it hard for me to read intent. Therefore, my interpretation is usually not very favourable.

These are my thoughts. I believe your ideas about art and how we should judge it (which is what you are prescribing) to be quite stupid, but you live your life however you want, I guess.

We musn't speak it's name, lest we be errata'd

How the fuck did I not know this,
I have gone my whole life awkwardly writing with white lines between everything and only now do I learn this?

Lockheed my beloved <3