18 Likes
16 Likes
Oh my gods, it’s real. I saw someone referencing (and mocking) the idea that “AI film making is punk rock” and I thought, “oh, they’re using that as an absurd exaggeration, no one actually said that, it’s just too stupid.” I should have known better. The rest is just as stupid.
“It’s hip hop”
Sure, hip-hop used samples, but they were also references. AI is a beige slurry of undifferentiated source material, reconstituted in a way that prevents references.
“It’s counterculture”
I don’t know how.
“It’s a new type of creativity”
It’s a limited type of creativity.
“It’s hated by the mainstream film and art establishment.”
Sure, because it’s bad, and not even in the passionate, earnest way that amateur art is. Also because it rejects the very idea of competency and expertise and people (well, the algorithms) are generating “content” without understanding, much less being able to make use of, the elements which compromise art, making it destructive to art as a whole.
“It resists ideology”
It encodes (someone else’s) ideology.
“It ignores gate keeping”
So does actually doing it yourself.
“It’s uncomfortable. It’s scary.”
The impact on the culture at large is scary, yes.
“It’s viral”
That’s… nonsense.
“It’s accessible”
I’d argue it gives the illusion of accessibility, but since it actually removes you from the creative process, it’s ultimately making everything even less accessible.
“It’s refreshing. It’s welcoming. It’s here.”
[eye roll gif]
Exactly, there’s nothing more “punk rock” — a movement whose whole ethos is “DIY as an alternative to a commoditized culture, even when you don’t have any technical skills” — than not doing any of it yourself and relying entirely on the commodity! What’s more punk rock than the literal opposite of punk rock?!
(I mean, FFS, even if we’re using “punk rock” as shorthand for “rebellious and cool,” using AI is still the opposite of punk rock. Buying into the heavily promoted tool by trillion dollar corporations as intended is never going to be “rebellious.”)
17 Likes
9 Likes
I think the lady that “saw one at the zoo” knew what was up.
8 Likes
Meanwhile, the first guy thinks humans were around to save dinosaurs and didn’t, so we need to do better this time.
The Flintstones was a documentary to people like this.
10 Likes
1 Like
Unfortunately behind a paywall so I can’t read the whole thing. But…
This is a recycled article with AI slapped into it. Robotics and automation in nursing homes and caregiving facilities has been talked about for a long time (I first heard about it more than 20 years ago), with Japan pioneering the field (because of deep seated racism preventing inviting foreign workers to perform these jobs).
Among the jobs that have been easily automated are non-AI jobs, such as delivering medicines to compliant patients, meals and drinks to patients that are able to lift trays, and very simple assistance with personal care, such as accessing bathrooms.
Humanoid-ish robots will (and do) execute most of these tasks, and for the tasks you would want them to perform for frail hoomans you’ll want program sophistication somewhere between an auto assembly bot, a roomba, and MS Outlook scheduling assistant. Adding a chatbot really isn’t necessary, especially since they seem to be encouraging people to have mental health crises.
Being gung-ho about AI being introduced into an elder care, EOL care, or hospice facility is a gross misunderstanding (surprise) of what those industries are, and what aging is. Tell me you’ve never interacted with a 95 year old without saying the words…
The elder care staffing crisis can only be solved by paying care givers a living, dignified wage, instead of trying to wring the very last drop of blood out of two of the most vulnerable populations.