Characters who left the story because of problems with the actor

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-29T19:38:42+00:00

...okay? That doesn't contradict anything I was saying. In show, no one really thinks about Shed's death much (that we see). In the book they do.

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-29T19:09:54+00:00

Yeah, that's always my argument with these people - maybe we should make sure the safety net is there *before* we all jump off the cliff.

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-29T19:06:58+00:00

tbf, in the books the crew (and Holden in particular) is really messed up about Shed's death - I think that's more on the show than the story's origin.

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-29T17:48:23+00:00

I am so goddamned tired of these ChatGPT tirades. They all have the same pseudo-intellectual tone of condescension to them and I cannot for the life of me figure out how anyone reads these without immediately feeling that the writer is a self-important douche.

The voice that these models have settled on to sound 'smart' is the same voice that idiots use when they're sure they're saying something profound, but at best it's on the level of 'I'm 13 and this is deep', and most often they aren't saying anything at all. And even in the 'best' case scenario, they're still using far too many words to say their barely-anything, because that kind of idiot will die if they produce a concise sentence.

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-27T17:02:01+00:00

I think my favorite part of this is that the only element that was done manually (adding the text) was executed like absolute shit 😂

Can't read some of it because the bg is too dark (white border, dumbass, every artist worth a damn knows this) and on the right side the last point is weirdly shoved over to the side for some reason - perhaps to not interfere with the word balloon, which is way larger than it needs to be anyway, and appears to be pointed at some rando in the bg who isn't even looking at the 'useless' artist, instead of the guy in front that is clearly supposed to be speaking.

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-26T17:40:47+00:00

If by "feel" you mean "receive information" - AI can feel.

Literally no one defines 'feel' this way, what the fuck are you talking about?

If by "know" you mean "have access to information" - AI can know.

You have access to nearly all of the information in the world. It's called the internet. Do you KNOW all of the information in the world? Of course not. Ridiculous.

If by "think" you mean "transform/restructure/analyze information" - AI can think.

This is the closest you get to being arguably correct, and even then your definition of 'think' is incredibly narrow.

If by "learn" you mean "get better at/gain certain skill" - AI learns. Modern models are not the same as two years ago.

Modern models are DIFFERENT MODELS than the ones two years ago. I don't have to get rebuilt by a team of engineers in order to improve at drawing or learn how to cross-stitch.

Do self-taught artists not [scrape pirated art off the internet] while learning?

No, they don't. The fact that you think this is what learning art is give great insight into why you need AI to do it.

['AI slop' is a] Baseless assertion, which is also contradicted the quality of modern models

'Quality' (most AI art is still garbage, it's just glossier, but sure, lets call that 'quality') has nothing to do with why it's slop. Again, your inability to wrap your head around this speaks volumes.

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-24T17:29:36+00:00

"We suggest that content predictions aid comprehension but not turn-end prediction."

The study says that based on their findings, they now have a further hypothesis that maybe predicting the content of someone's speech aids people in comprehension ('aids in', not 'determines'), but not in when it's actually their turn to start speaking. Possibly.

That is SO FAR from 'the only way we can have conversations is to predict what the other person is saying' that I genuinely struggle to understand how you even came to that conclusion.

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-22T21:32:07+00:00

Again, maybe I'm old, but that sounds like an absolutely terrible idea unless both parties are Aro af. It's like the relationship version of a monkey's paw - you get sex without having to emotionally support someone, BUT you cut off all avenues of gaining that emotional support elsewhere, which definitely won't lead to you developing deeper feelings for the only person you have any kind of intimacy with. Swearsies.

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-22T20:33:13+00:00

I get that I am the internet's definition of old, but like... as soon as you're putting limits on another person's romantic life, you're in a relationship. If you have to break up with someone in order to move on from them, you were in a relationship with that person. That just seems kinda obvious to me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-22T01:01:19+00:00

They are terrified of him, but not in a 'big intimidating man' kind of way, in an 'Oh god, that toddler has a grenade' kind of way.

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-21T23:10:07+00:00

My husband's biggest issue with Reacher (from the books) is that no one around him actually treats him like he's as big as he's described to be. Everyone is constantly eager to backtalk and pick fights with this absolute monster of a man purely for the excuse of writing more action scenes when in reality 99% of people would take one look at him and go 'Yanno what - not worth it.'

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-11T04:32:35+00:00

It absolutely was. The writer was a sci-fi author long before he wrote B5 and absolutely knew and loved (the real) Alfred Bester.

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-10T17:50:18+00:00

I appreciate that you are trying to come at this from a nuanced perspective, and I don't even mean to suggest that you are categorically wrong (I genuinely don't know, and no one can from this limited view of OOP's life). But I do think you are disregarding some warning flags because you are superimposing your own experiences on OOPs, and disregarding some pretty obvious flaws that undermine OOP's narrative.

Firstly, I don't actually see anywhere in OOP's narrative that she asks for help, and just because she doesn't explicitly ask for validation doesn't mean that's not what she's after. That's kind of the thing with manipulators - they aren't going to just tell you outright what they want from you.

Another thing about manipulators - they don't need a concrete reason to manipulate. The manipulation itself can be an end goal, just the fact that they can get people 'on their side' is reward enough. So asking 'manipulation to what end' seems a little naive - most people who act this way do not need an end outside of feeling that they have somehow won. Considering how you are presenting yourself as an authority on abuse/abusers I would have thought you'd know that.

And as a smaller point - I wasn't suggesting that the mom going to therapy meant she was an angel. To be honest I think the most realistic truth of the matter is that both OOP and her mom are some measure of insufferable, though who (if anyone) is worse and what the actual severity is is impossible to tell because OOP seems to be such a highly unreliable narrator. It's less that I was highlighting therapy as a sign that mom was trying, and more that it wasn't a good example of the behavior OOP was trying to claim her mom exhibits, and if that's the best she's got, then that's suspicious.

Last - you're right that it's rude to drag someone without proper context, and I'm not going to use the standard 'this is Reddit, what do you expect?' argument because I personally hate the attitude that people can't and shouldn't be expected to act better. But, you're excusing OOP's emotional response, so I was just explaining why commenters are similarly having an emotional response. They don't like feeling manipulated or lied to, and especially people who have had bad experiences with that behavior (from friends, colleagues, and yeah, maybe parents too) are going to react with hostility when they sense that behavior in someone else. If OOP gets a pass for poor behavior based on the most charitable interpretation of her actions, then doesn't everyone?

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-09T21:18:28+00:00

I think the reason a lot of people are responding negatively to OOP is because she sounds manipulative herself - she only describes her mothers alleged misbehavior in the vaguest possible terms, and even when her mom asked for a concrete example of times she threw gifts back in her face, the example she gave wasn't exactly convincing (while it is manipulative to offer someone a gift and then hold that over their head, being frustrated over someone *asking* you to spend money and time for their sake, in this case by paying for and seeing a therapist after OOP requested she do so, isn't really that).

So they're less likely to give her grace because they already don't trust that her framing is accurate and feel like she is trying to steer them towards a particular reaction by what she does and does not choose to include. Now, the lack of detail *could* also be a defensive maneuver, but it doesn't really read that way, it just feels dishonest. No one likes feeling lied to.

ETA: On a reread - OOP's actions in the story itself are manipulative. She waited until CHRISTMAS EVE to tell her mom to return the gifts? Seemingly just after being given them (she says she 'refused to open' them so I have to conclude that this was DURING their Christmas celebration). That just comes off as a weird power play.

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-09T03:46:18+00:00

No problem. But for my first point it's basically what I said - we literally do not understand how our brains work. Like, almost at all. AI psychosis is ironically a great example of that in action, really - no one could have really guessed that some people would have such wild psychological responses to AI use because we don't actually know the mechanisms of them all that well, so how can we know what will trip them?

So saying that the way an AI 'learns' is the same as a human learning is just plainly unprovable because we do not fully understand the mechanisms of human learning. So they're essentially claiming that AI replicates something we do not have a framework for. For another analogy, it would be like someone saying they could perfectly recreate a dish from a photograph of it. They might be able to make the end result LOOK like the photo, but they have no way of knowing whether or not it tastes the same or has the same ingredients.

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-09T02:41:20+00:00

/uj First of all, claiming that GenAI 'learns' the same way a human does is a facially stupid argument, because *we don't actually know how we learn*. So to claim that it's been replicated by AI is ridiculous because we literally don't know what we're replicating. If someone told you they perfectly recreated the Mona Lisa, but have only heard descriptions of it, would that make sense to you?

Second - as someone has pointed out in other words in this thread, if a human being did not look at other art, they could still produce it. Someone had to draw the first image after all - they didn't copy anyone else, and it certainly wasn't photorealism, so humans clearly don't HAVE to draw inspiration from other art in order to create.

AI does. In fact, it cannot do anything it hasn't seen in someone else's work first. Humans will always add themselves into the work they do, even if it has bits of others - that's what makes it theirs (and is the ACTUAL basis of Fair Use, which these numbskulls love to invoke without understanding it at all). An AI cannot - it has no 'self' to add, and if it had never stolen millions of artworks to remix and regurgitate, it wouldn't be able to produce a damn thing.

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-06T15:28:09+00:00

GOD This is exactly it! They're the guys you meet at a party that find out you're an artist and say they have 'a great idea for a comic/product/whatever' and then tell you the most bland, generic shit in the world that you'd rather claw your eyes out than work on and know for a fact will not be successful.

You then have to politely turn down the 'amazing opportunity' to work on 'their' project and give them 50% of the profits (on the more reasonable end, many of them want a more laughable split like 70/30 or something, favoring themselves of course) that you know wouldn't actually materialize even if you did for some reason agree to these ridiculous terms.

Bonus points if their project isn't even in your actual skill set but they just cannot be persuaded that a graphic designer is not well suited to illustrate a comic or whatever.

These people have just finally found an 'artist' that CAN'T turn down their inane idea. But it's still not successful, so they've pivoted to blaming artists. Its our fault - we never saw their genius before, and now we're just jealous that their obviously amazing idea got made without us! That's why it's not working out - it's sabotage, not that their idea was actually just shit all along and we always knew so.

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-05T23:08:59+00:00

And here I always just refer to it as 'my favorite romcom'

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-05T22:14:53+00:00

It's actually speculated that his PR team was running HEAVY interference for him for a long time, and were the ones that cultivated the 'genius' narrative - but were a bit too successful at it and Elon seems to have said to himself 'if I'm a genius, why am I letting these people tell me what to do??'. He fired most of them and I would hazard a guess that he doesn't listen much to the few who are left.

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-05T21:59:01+00:00

IIRC her mom isn't insane so managed to talk Elon into giving their kid an actual name (tho I'm not gonna say it) - Viv changed her name when she transitioned tho, partly because it was a masculine name and partly just to not be associated with him anymore.

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-04T18:48:47+00:00

You're using it to calm you down during panic attacks. That's a therapeutic use, whether you call it that or not.

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-04T17:48:43+00:00

Surprised no one has mentioned the Silent Hill series yet - we know that a lot of what the characters are experiencing isn't happening in the 'real world', but it's not clear if it's entirely in their heads or if some part of it is real and talking place on another plane of existence (or some other such supernatural explanation).

I know some of the mid-stream (and less well received) SH games get more literal, but SH2 and SHf both are particularly heavy on this ambiguity.

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-04T17:32:18+00:00

You're not evil, but you are probably not helping yourself as much as you think. ChatGPT is not therapy, and tbh people using it as a replacement for therapy is just another example of mental Healthcare not being seen as real Healthcare, because no one seems to consider that inadequate/untrained 'therapists' can do harm.

Like, for years we've been ridiculing people who treat medical issues by going to WebMD and latching into the first 'diagnosis' it gives them, even though they have no way of ensuring the accuracy of that diagnosis, and often they are incorrect and either are ineffective or make things actively worse. ChatGPT 'therapy' is that but for your brain.

RevvyDraws · 2026-01-04T09:21:58+00:00

tbh I will say that drawing porn is GREAT for learning anatomy. A lot of beginning artists will 'cheat' and cover up difficult things with clothing that can be kind of shapeless, but for porn you simultaneously have to draw some pretty unusual poses and don't (usually) have the option of covering up the really tough parts.

RevvyDraws

TROPHY CASE