Except as you demonstrated, it requires quite a few leaps of interpretation, assuming the worst interpretations of OP’s statement, which is why it’s silly. OP clearly limited their statement to themselves and AI.

Now if OP said, “everyone should use a calculator or die”, maybe then it would have been a valid response.

You’re correct on your analysis, older governments and the farming industry alike essentially ignored the problem hoping it would go away (spoiler: it didnt).

Luckily that farmer party is not big anymore. They do still hold quite some seats in the Dutch senate from the 1-2 elections they were big (which they will lose in a couple of years), but not in the house anymore, where they are essentially only a small party now and hold / are projected no more than 2-4 seats of 150 seats in total. (Sadly most of their voters jumped ship to the next group of populists, the anti immigration party 🥲)

but if you had infinite usable desk space then what, exactly, would be the argument against it?

So I guess we agree then. Circumstances make something more or less optimal, meaning they are not objectively more optimal in every situation. That was my entire point, nothing more.

That’s true, and if that’s the case then that definitely changes the choice. Although, afaik these smaller keyboards often come with software to remap keys or add macro’s at the driver level. (And for this choice specifically, 75% keyboard and higher do seem to mostly have both F keys and home/end). But yeah, some people’s use consist of just writing emails and streaming video, in which case they won’t care about any of that.

If a full-sized keyboard provides all the keys you reasonably need to do your tasks efficiently, then yes a full-sized keyboard is superior. But that is just not the use case for everyone, hence why it can’t be objectively so. Unless you want to imply that more keys even if you don’t need them is better anyways.

If so, you could argue this monstrosity of a keyboard (or something even bigger) is what everyone should be using if they have the space, since it has way more buttons than a full-sized keyboard, making it even more objectively superior. In reality you would not use more than 30% of the buttons on that keyboard, so the rest might as well not exist. But if you are, I don’t know, some macro-wizard playing 4 instances of WoW at the same time, maybe it is objectively superior for your needs, but for me a normal sized keyboard would do.

But to try and sense where you’re coming from, it should also be said that someone telling you their choice is better and disregarding that your criteria aren’t the same as theirs is being silly as well. And sometimes they can be stubborn and agitated about that as well - exactly the kind of hostility I meant in my initial comment. But someone’s got to step up and swallow their pride and accept it really is just all subjective at the end of the day.

While I love my full-sized keyboard, respectfully - who cares. The whole idea of a PC is the freedom to use whatever you want.

Keyboards, controllers, speech to text, a wii-mote, literal bananas/bread, eye/blink trackers, whatever suits you best. Insisting there’s a best device for everyone doesn’t change people’s minds and just leads to hostility when we should be glad more people are using the device that makes them happy. One day you might be one of them when your circumstances or preferences change.

Pretty hostile to us men and boys (and anyone who identifies otherwise) who dont need to be toxic to cover up fragility either

It should definitely be marked as NSFW, but different cultures look VERY differently to death, and to pet death as well. It should be marked for that reason, but otherwise the ones I’ve seen are very similar to a human open casket funeral / viewing.

People go to these places to show it because people with the same kind of pets can often relate better than other people. And if it gets upvotes I doubt many people there find it as objectionable.

It’s hard not to see exactly what the US under Trump is doing with these kinds of hostile actions lately. They’re trying to create a situation where Europe and/or others can only reasonably respond back with actions they can brand as hostile in return (That, or bend the knee), so they can play the victim and weaponize that as propaganda to undermine the peaceful and friendly relationships between the common people, a foundation of keeping large scale peace since WW2. Disgusting and utterly sinister behavior. We must resist being played like that and fight back against that urge while remaining defiant of this circus.

Thanks for clarifying. I get your point, I honestly dont doubt someone or a group with such opinions exists out there, I just dont think it represents anywhere near a critical mass.

Sadly, when there’s big money to be made such as for blockbusters, even some human work before AI was already pretty ‘sanitized’ or ‘toned down’ in terms of human creativity, as it must be as uncontroversial and mainstream appealing as possible. So yes if AI got good enough it would definitely be used by some of those companies.

However, I dont see any path for current AI technology to get there without at least 1 or 2 breakthrough similar to the advent of current AI technology.

I also dont think it will replace anything beyond the works of companies with great profit incentive. We have a massive amount of communities where human creativity is central in all shapes and forms, producing works that arent appealing to everyone, but to the people it resonates with, it is so uniquely special that its irreplaceable. This kind of art thrives on it’s human creativity rather than it’s ability to make money. The human desire to produce and consume art that resonates with them is so strong it wont go anywhere as long as people have the time and ability to produce it.

Rest assured, there is basically no talk of replacing anyone with AI in my corner of the creative industry.

Should the day come that AI truly becomes that good it can compete with human creativity, its likely that AI will have become far more human in terms of how it creates art, and would start exhibiting the same tendencies to share human experiences and memories. Then the difference will start to fade and indeed we might go the way of the horses, but such a scenario is essentially sci-fi right now - we may never even get close and art might have made many radical shifts before we get there. And like the camera didnt kill hand painted portraits, there will still be a place for human creativity, just less.

But so long as the incentive is there, it might eventually happen. And so we should be ready to safeguard creativity in some manner along the way. But currently the most effective ways of doing so entail mostly to curb our capitalistic society, and not at the technology. Because doing so could in the worst case lock creatives out from the technology and start a race for the capability to keep up, and large companies would surely win out if we let them.

They have more means of doing things and more data than smaller creators, and AI does seem to pull some of that power back to smaller creators, hence why even thought it might seem big companies are all pro AI, dont be surprised if they are totally fine taking a powerful tool away so they can take it just for themselves.

I’m someone who talks about AI a lot on lemmy, people might call me pro AI although I consider myself to be neither pro nor anti, but admittedly, optimistic about AI in general. I work with people in the creative industry, artists, writers, designers, you name it.

As others have mentioned already, your question to my knowledge does not reflect most people’s view on AI neither online and even less so in real life. And I talk and participate in communities that are overwhelmingly pro AI. The “AI bros” you mention sound like caricatures to me.

There are some who have become bitter by lies and misinformation spread about AI that are intentionally hateful as a kind of reverse gotcha, but thats about it. You have those on the anti AI side as well for different reasons.

I dont consider AI to be anywhere close to being a threat to the industry, other than indirectly through the forces of capitalism and mismanagement. Your question indeed seems very insane to me. Most people that use and talk about AI to me seem more interested in using it to make new creative works, or enhance existing works to greater depth in the same time. Creative people are human too and have limited time, and often their time is already cut short by deadlines and their work has been systematically undervalued even before AI.

AI as it currently stands on its own simply has no feeling of direction. Without much effort you can get very pretty, elegant, interesting, but ultimately meaningless things from it. This cannot replace anyone, because such content while intriguing doesnt capture attention for long. It also cannot do complex tasks such as discussing with stakeholders or remaining consistent across work and feedback.

With a creative person at the wheel of the AI though, something special can happen. It can give AI the direction it needs to bring back that meaning.

This is a perspective a lot of people miss, since they only see AI as ChatGPT or Midjourney, not realizing that these are proprietary (not open source) front ends to the technology that essentially hide all the controls and options the technology has, because these things are essentially a new craft on their own and to this day very little people are even in the progress of mastering them.

Everyone knows about prompts, but you can do much more than that depending on the model. Some image models allow you to provide your own input image, and even additional images that control aspects of the image like depth, layout, outlines. And text models allow you to pack a ton of pre existing data that completely guide what it will output next, as well as provide control over the internal math that decides how it comes to its guess for the next word.

Without a creative and inventive person behind the wheel, you get generic AI material we all know. And with such a person, you get material at times indistinguishable from normal material. These people are already plentiful in the creative industry, and they are not going anywhere, and new people that meet this criteria are always welcome. Art is for everyone, and especially those who are driven.

Really the only threat to the creative industry in regards to AI is that some wish to bully and coerce those who use the technology into submission and force them to reject it, and even avoid considering it altogether like dogma. This creates a submissive group that will never learn how to operate AI models. Should AI ever become neccesary to work in the creative industry (it currently doesnt look like it) these people will be absolutely decimated by the ones that kept an open mind, and more importantly, the youth of tomorrow that always is more open to new technologies. This is a story of the ages whenever new technology comes around, as it never treats those that reject it kindly, if it sticks around.

The loom and the Luddites, cars and horses, cameras and painters, mine workers and digging machines, human calculators and mechanical calculators, the list goes on.

So no, being pro AI doesnt neccesarily mean you are participating in the downfall of the creative industry. Neither does being anti AI. But spreading falsehoods and stifling healthy discussion, that can kill any industry except those built on dishonesty.

While I’m not particularly fond of using AI for any kind of truthful information, this post reeks of the classic “Quit having fun!” meme. Your value judgement of AI is no more valid than anyone elses, and honestly in my opinion, very misdirected and anger fueled.

It’s in everyone’s best interest for AI content to be honestly declared. You are almost certainly already consuming AI content from somewhere without knowing it because angry hate mobs have conditioned people to just lie and obfuscate their AI usage to avoid being the target of hate. And if not, you will eventually due to the power of the technology, as the entire creative industry is already silently integrating it, as everyone with an open mind knows, but the benefit of honesty towards closed minded angry people is none, and that situation is a shame.

Good AI usage is impossible to detect, and we should encourage honesty in regards to it.

You had me in the first half, but then you lost me in the second half with the claim of stolen material. There is no such material inside the AI, just the ideas that can be extracted from such material. People hate their ideas being taken by others but this happens all the time, even by the people that claim that is why they do not like AI. It’s somewhat of a rite of passage for your work to become so liked by others that they take your ideas, and every artist or creative person at that point has to swallow the tough pill that their ideas are not their property, even when their way of expressing them is. The alternative would be dystopian since the same companies we all hate, that abuse current genAI as well, would hold the rights to every idea possible.

If you publicize your work, your ideas being ripped from it is an inevitability. People learn from the works they see and some of them try to understand why certain works are so interesting, extracting the ideas that do just that, and that is what AI does as well. If you hate AI for this, you must also hate pretty much all creative people for doing the exact same thing. There’s even a famous quote for that before AI was even a thing. “Good artists copy, great artists steal.”

I’d argue that the abuse of AI to (consider) replacing artists and other working creatives, spreading of misinformation, simplifying of scams, wasting of resources by using AI where it doesn’t belong, and any other unethical means to use AI are far worse than it tapping into the same freedom we all already enjoy. People actually using AI for good means will not be pumping out cheap AI slop, but are instead weaving it into their process to the point it is not even clear AI was used at the end. They are not the same and should not be confused.

Not sure why you think I have blind faith? I’ve got blind faith in no one. Least of all the american voter lol.

Stop trying to force your interpretation on my words, it’s not what I said, period. I’m not limiting my scope to two choices. The US constitution does that for the matter of what party is in office. There are very obvious other choices, and most of them call for massive human suffering like civil war or political violence, which I’m not going to iterate on for obvious reasons. Nowhere do I deny the existence of those choices, I’m just presenting the obvious conclusion of trying to change the system in a peaceful manner.

Not that optimistically (And realistically, not common sense either apparently), but yes, it’s a potential path. And a peaceful one, among a multitude of bloody ones.

I’m not expecting anything, And I never said they had to do anything. Who would be expecting any kind of logical reasoning from US voters after this result. I said “If you want to” = “In order to get a desirable outcome, this is potentially the only way to do so.”, not “Everyone must do this because I say so”

You can blame both, honestly. The US has always had the same political game as ever, people should be wise enough to understand how to play it. If you ever want to get to a more stable democracy that no longer has the stupid two party system that prevents any form of real representative democracy where you can actually have a selection of parties that represent you perfectly, the choice should be obvious.

At least with Harris they could try to work with her and convince them to change their views for the future as they ruled. Trump will call you a left wing lunatic and slam the door in your face. Zero influence and no chance for progress (and even regression) vs some influence and some chance to progress.

Yeah and honestly, this is largely a reasonable standard for anyone running an email server. If you don’t have SPF, DKIM and DMARC, basically anyone can spoof your emails and you’d be none the wiser. It also makes spam much harder to send without well, sacrificing IP addresses to the many spam lists. I wouldn’t be surprised if some people setting up their own mail server were made aware of these things because of being blocked.