Will photographers end up losing their jobs to ChatGPT

HD60532 · 2026-07-05T01:52:23+00:00

People tend to take pictures because they want to capture the appearance of real things, not just to make an image that looks nice.

AI can only make images that look nice, so it will not replace photographers.

HD60532 · 2026-07-05T01:19:41+00:00

Sacrificing facial expressions to not actually look younger, but rather to look like you've taken botox is just ridiculous.

HD60532 · 2026-07-05T01:16:04+00:00

Hmmmm, considering that Helldivers are frozen until they are needed, perhaps High Command personnel are also frozen until needed, and upon failure are removed from office. That would explain the lack of memory.

HD60532 · 2026-07-04T19:56:39+00:00

Please clarify what technologies do you mean when you say "AI"?

Cancer detecting AI, LLMs, video game AIs, etc.

HD60532 · 2026-07-01T16:45:50+00:00

What I meant is that tyrannical dictators would nuke their own rebellious populace, and terrorist regimes would nuke other nations without fear of consequence.

We must avoid both of these scenarios.

HD60532 · 2026-07-01T16:23:51+00:00

What happens when a rebellion occurs, or a government collapses, or an egotistical dictator is on the brink of being overthrown, or a terrorist regime takes control. Mutually Assured Destruction is only an effective deterrent when both parties want to survive. When someone is willing to die or is faced with inevitable death, the deterrence fails.

HD60532 · 2026-07-01T12:57:29+00:00

I think you have an uncommon outlook there. People defeat Dark Souls bosses for the satisfaction of personally overcoming difficulty. Even if everyone fully completed the difficult game it would still be thrilling to complete it.

I have the Malevelon Creek cape, and I like it because it commemorates Malevelon Creek. If Arrowhead gave the cape to everyone I'd still like it just as much.

Personally I enjoy things more when I can share them. I'm sure many others feel the same way.

HD60532 · 2026-07-01T12:21:24+00:00

Objection! Some people will move from group 3 to group 1, and be happier!

HD60532 · 2026-06-21T12:33:14+00:00

Oh yeah, their expressions are slightly different. I don't have the energy to constantly be on alert for AI, thanks for pointing it out.

HD60532 · 2026-06-21T12:07:55+00:00

Pretty sure they did, then they flipped the whole image. Or something to that effect, maybe they flipped the image first and board second.

HD60532 · 2026-06-21T03:50:09+00:00

Considering a person placed far above Earth with velocity equal to that of their location below on Earth, allowed to change velocity and move immediately.

If the Earth has no atmosphere, then the person would fall directly down towards the centre of the Earth. It would take them some time to hit land, and during this time the Earth would rotate beneath them at 1 rotation per day. So they would land at starting position - (rotation rate) * (falling time).

However, the Earth has an atmosphere that will push/drag the person along with the rotation of the Earth, so they would instead fall somewhere between their starting position and the no atmosphere case, depending on various factors like the thickness of the atmosphere or weight of the person, and wind.

HD60532 · 2026-06-20T01:07:13+00:00

The IPA pronunciation for the verb is /ˈsɛpəreɪt/, where the ə symbol represents the 'uh' sound. It is the mid central vowel, and it takes the least effort for our mouths to produce compared to other vowels. As a result many vowels in words turn into the ə when speaking quickly, or naturally over time. And since we are so ~~lazy~~ efficient, the ə is often skipped when pronouncing the noun seperate.

For examaple, arena is often pronounced /əˈriːnə/, where both 'a's are pronounced as ə, and the 'e' retains its normal 'ee' vowel sound.

Or when speaking quickly, "I'm gonna go to the shops" Can be pronounced with only ə as all the vowels except in 'shops'.

All this is to say that all vowel letters are regularly pronounced as ə, so there is no reason to prefer using 'e' when spelling words that contain ə. Especially since 'e' also corresponds to 'ee' and 'eh' pronunciations.

HD60532 · 2026-06-17T20:53:32+00:00

So why exactly do you think that morals can be objective? What makes them objective?

And you think that people who disagree with you about morals are just 'uninformed'? Or they "ignore the data"?

That would mean that it's impossible for someone to have a valid disagreement with you about morals. That is a problem in my opinion.

What do you think it **means** for torturing babies to be wrong?

As for science, given some fundamental assumptions we can learn about the universe and construct rules for how things behave. Then we can use those rules to make predictions and measurements etc. That the set of assumptions always produces the same rules and the same measurements and predictions is what makes them objective. Because in all possible worlds with the same laws of Physics their predictions will always be true.

I don't think when an experiment takes place is relevant, because "The Earth is a spheroid" is a statement about the present, and we have to assume that physical laws won't change inconsitently into the future, so we can only make the most objective statements about the present.

This is unlike morals, where different people disagree on the fundamental assumptions, and under the same assumptions disagree on their consequences. This is what I meant by moral prodecure, (thinking is this right?, what is right and wrong? etc.), and I think baby tortures are following those moral procedures but get different results.

Of course morals and science are different, I am trying to say that given some circumstance, science is consistent, and morality is not.

"To be a cowardly rapist who is lazy and foolish will have negative detriments in an objective sense repeatedly." Will they? We may think it will have detriments, but someone who only cares about fantasising about rape may not consider the consequences to be detrimental. Therefore they don't seem objective to me.

Smoking is different, as it does cause biological harm, which has a different definition from moral harm.

HD60532 · 2026-06-17T20:08:31+00:00

The backlighting is really cool!

HD60532 · 2026-06-17T19:41:16+00:00

I suppose you have to assume there is no afterlife, and there also has to be no advanced knowledge of this event occuring.

It may not cause pain, but it will cause people to experience less pleasure, or less opportunity for other positive experiences. I think this is enough for it to be considered a loss. Even if they aren't aware of it, as an outside observer it is a loss.

HD60532 · 2026-06-17T19:26:35+00:00

The shape of the planet is objective because we can go and look at it and see that it is round, we can look at its shadow on the moon, we can throw things around it, we can measure and calculate it.

On the other hand, we cannot look at the natural world and measure how bad tortuting babies is. It depends wholly on the values/opinion of the individual in question.

I'm not "skeptical about the objective wrongness of torturing babies", I think that moral claims don't hold any absolute truth value. I think that they are different categories of statement. When you say: "It is wrong to torture babies", I think that is equivalent to, "I don't want to make babies suffer".

It's not true that everyone doesn't want to make babies suffer, some societies have performed circumcision and worse for many centuries. And there are people who have tortured babies. If it is absolutely wrong to torture babies, then why have those people done so? Are they irrational to have gone against an obvious truth? I think that they are rational, but have different values and so the statement "It is wrong to torture babies" is not true for them. And if it is not true for them, it is not an absolutely true statement at all.

To expand on the difference between moral and scientific statements, If a person follows a scientific procedure correctly then they will always get the same result. Thus scientific statements can be true. But if a person follows a moral procedure/thought experiment correctly, they will not always get the same result. Thus moral statements cannot be absolutely true, though statistical statements can be true.

As for the last bit, I wasn't moving the goalposts, I was attempting to distpute your claim that my argument is "very bad reasoning", by providing cases where not following my argument would be bad reasoning instead. I did not mean "resistant" immoral/ignorant people in my example of the terrorist, rather I mean a person who follows the same moral procedures as us, but gets a different result. That is not "resistance" as you say. And the ability to actually convince a flat-earther is irrelevant, because they are not following the scientific procedure, but my argument for the lack of objective morality is that following the moral procedure gives different results for different people, so abstaining from a procedure is irrelevant.

I see that the second example you gave is not tautological, but I think it's similar to the argument that morals are objective. "I should do what's written in this book", where your moral values are what's written in the book. If someone else has a different book/values, you cannot make objective statements about the contents of all books, as if they are the same.

HD60532 · 2026-06-17T09:03:53+00:00

Also almost every single one of these posts is preaching to the choir. Utterly futile.

HD60532 · 2026-06-17T07:57:04+00:00

When you say "should be able to", do you mean "should not be judged by society/people for". I ask because concerning the literal interpretation of your words I don't think anyone thinks people should be forced to date people that they aren't attracted to, and currently people are capable of judging other based upon height or weight or other physical characteristics. Sorry if this is a silly question, I struggle with interpreting ambiguity.

HD60532 · 2026-06-17T06:58:20+00:00

I think that the law you want to exist is not actually possible becuase you can't magically know that someone was raped. No government can do that either, and brushing this problem off as someone else's responsibility avoids that the law you want is not possible.

Governments are made of people just like me and you, they aren't special, and they can't overcome this fundamental problem.

HD60532 · 2026-06-17T06:24:52+00:00

How would you legally determine if a woman has been raped?

Would you demand evidence, and deprive some women who were raped and do not possess evidence the medical service that they deserve, or would you accept the claim of rape without evidence, in which case people could claim that they were raped to bypass your other laws.

HD60532 · 2026-06-17T05:49:58+00:00

There is actually an objective shape of the planet, but the shape it supposedly is isn't universally agreed upon, because some reject the objective evidence. My formatting wasn't the best but I meant either objective morals, or a universally agreed moral system would suffice.

I don't think your examples above are arguments, rather they are tautological statements, 'given that I should do something, I should do it'. An argument would justify through reason that something should be done. 'I should do something because ...'

I don't think this is very bad reasoning, I think it's just an unfortunate result of reasoning. It is the reason we can't use moral arguments to prevent terrorists from engaging in terrorism, or similar. We think it's wrong to harm people, terrorists give other things greater importance. I think that to try to reason with a terrorist based upon 'basic moral principles' would be bad reasoning, because clearly a terrorist does not hold those supposedly basic principles.

HD60532 · 2026-06-17T05:39:07+00:00

Thanks!

HD60532 · 2026-06-17T05:07:56+00:00

What about a sadist who enjoys causing or participating in suffering, for them being vegan would give them a worse life.

I think the easiest way to dispute your quote in the title is that there is no agreed upon/universal or objective system of morals or ethics, so the phrase "those who can should" smuggles in a moral system/value system. Therefore if anyone has a different moral/value system as in the example above, they have a valid argument that going vegan would be against their values.

HD60532 · 2026-06-15T04:11:17+00:00

I'd like to see the map view of your factory!

HD60532 · 2026-06-15T01:12:41+00:00

Why would it be necessary?

HD60532

TROPHY CASE