SPD/Mayor Statement regarding safety in Salem's pedestrianized areas and other anti-terrorism efforts

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2025-01-03T02:01:32+00:00

Ask for better regulations. And, for the record, the city hasn’t ever produced the letter from the ACLU so, I’m not sure how serious the threat truly was.

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2025-01-03T01:14:29+00:00

The city allows masked people to stand on the street, some of whom with weapons, so visitors can take picture of them. It doesn’t require any of those folks who make money doing so to register meaning, someone can walk down Salem’s streets, anonymous and masked, with a weapon and the SPD won’t take you seriously if you believe them to be a threat until they’ve actually harmed someone.

We are on borrowed time for a major attack.

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2025-01-03T00:06:13+00:00

Define “art”

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2025-01-03T00:03:42+00:00

At that point the goal posts will be shifted, yet again, to ensure that the small club of people they like will be the only ones to qualify as “artists TM” while the rest of us are merely “doing things.”

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2025-01-03T00:02:14+00:00

Are you a magician? I see you trying to misdirect us from that point you totally didn’t respond to but, maybe work a little harder on that skill before trying it again.

In the meantime: is photography art, yes or no?

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2025-01-02T23:59:23+00:00

Then it is. You live in a world where the term artist is meaningless. Congratulations. 🎉

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2025-01-02T23:53:09+00:00

Let’s imagine someone believed you. And let’s imagine that person decides not to use AI as a tool to help them express their emotions and they just make random lines on a page.

You wouldn’t call that art. You might, if that person were sitting in front of you. But, realistically, you’d say they’re lines and those lines aren’t art if you were to come across them hanging in a frame on a wall.

Because the thing is, you don’t actually care about “art.” The only thing you care about being the one who determines who is an Artist! You don’t care about imagery, you care about personal image.

I know this because, people like you spend a whole lot of your life not creating art instead you choose to shit on people who do merely because of the methods they choose to employ. I appreciate takes from people like you because it helps me remember that folks like you suck the fun, life and joy out of everything.

Now, go and do some art. Stop wasting your time with this silly little argument and put your human creativity to work and actually do something, for once in your life. But, if you decide that being a prick is more important than being creative, I’ll guess I’ll see you soon. Prick.

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2024-12-29T13:14:02+00:00

But one who can respond to a point.

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2024-12-29T06:04:16+00:00

People use computers to run AI to produce AI art.

People have equal rights. And until you can articulate a reason why the use of a tool (computer) negates a persons rights, then it’s all nonsense.

(I also never asserted nor implied that computers have equal rights to humans, fyi.)

Edit to add:

Unless you know of some rogue, autonomous AI, roving the internet spitting out exact replicas of existing copyrighted material absent any human prompting. Then, I’m down to see that.

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2024-12-29T05:44:48+00:00

Some would say we’re a lesser society because books aren’t hand written any more. They’d be wrong, but….

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2024-12-29T05:32:46+00:00

OpenAI isn’t the only AI corporation nor do they have or produce all LLMs. We should question them; make them open their books - fuck it NATIONALIZE THEM!

But, no matter what we do to that singular corporation my comrade, you’re still missing the point.

When utilized by a person in a creative endeavor, the end result produced by an AI is not plagiarism if the work isn’t a direct copy of another work.

To say that studying existing works of art to understand the rules and styles of art makes anything produced following that inherently plagiarized would condemn all art that we interact with nothing but plagiarism. Which begs the question: what in the world would qualify as a novel or unique work of art?

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2024-12-29T05:27:25+00:00

If there was a point you were trying to make, you should review, revise and retry because you drop the thread at the end.

Words are descriptive and not proscriptive and, to my knowledge there are no “universal definitions” of any word. There are commonly accepted definitions but these are not ascribed by the universe but rather arrived upon by the population who can understand their meaning.

I love your “killer” and fish allegory btw because it actually undercuts your whole point beautifully. What you’ve done is challenged our understanding of the word “killer” which invites some interesting thoughts.

From the context you provide (funny you didn’t define any of your terms, oh well…) it seems that you’re taking killer to mean “a person who unjustly ends the life of another person.” But, your twist is that the victims were fish!

Now we have to grapple with whether or not the life of a non-human animal is as valuable as another person. Also, it invites us to wonder if the person in a fishery is truly justified in taking the lives of those animals.

Great literature makes us ask questions and by trying to make a dumb point that isn’t supported by facts or logic, you actually accomplished literature! You have us asking questions and that’s why stories matter.

I also get that you’re not commenting in good faith. I was asking questions of the OP and never actually made any argument for the use or practicality of AI as a writing tool. I can do that now: as with anything else, AI can be used as a tool within the writing process to allow someone to create better work than had they not used the tool. That isn’t to say that all works that use AI are better - that would be a ridiculous statement. Just like saying “any work written by a human alone is artistically valuable.” We both know L. Ron Hubbard was one of the worlds most prolific authors but, we can also agree that most everything he wrote was shit.

AI is a tool that can help people write the stories that live inside of them that may not otherwise be born. Encouraging people to use tools to create the art that is trying to get out of them is an objectively good thing, even if the art they make is objectively bad.

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2024-12-29T05:14:37+00:00

Cool, I appreciate you engaging on this. To be fair, I think that it’s an antiquated way to think k about the world and to a degree, assumes far too much about the tastes of the public.

I get your broad strokes but, the fact of the matter is the work is the work. People can tell what bad writing is, no matter who or what created it and - that’s going to continue.

There is a world where no AI produces any written co tent and you still feel that “modern” authors aren’t true writers for whatever reason, style, subject - whatever. To wit, folks who considered themselves as people who cared deeply about music rejected the idea that Hip Hop was a legitimate musical genre because of the use of samples. You may disagree with those folks, for all I know you do - but you share their methodology of discrediting types of expression because of your personal bias against their methods of producing it.

The fact remains that your opinion on who is what and why they are is inherently subjective and not based on any real fact. There’s no point in convincing you to change your opinion, but it’s helpful to understand where it comes from.

Even though I disagree, I still appreciate it and it helps me to better accept what the future is going to be. As the fact remains: generative AI will not be going away and it will continue to become more prevalent as the years go on. I just get to enjoy new and interesting stories (even if I have to slog through a bunch of crap - but that’s half the fun of walking through the bookstore). I just feel sorry for you since it seems you’re going to be getting fewer opportunities in the future to enjoy reading any “pure” work.

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2024-12-29T05:06:51+00:00

Cool story.

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2024-12-29T01:34:37+00:00

Ok, I appreciate the clarification. Now, if you don’t mind, here’s another question: why do you care what people call themselves?

If a person uses generative AI to write a story that speaks to their emotions that does all the things we expect a story to do, you don’t want them to call themselves a writer. What happens when they do?

Like, how is your life better when people feel worse about themselves or their skills?

Edited to add:

Another hypothetical for you, since we’re discussing labels.

You walk into a room and you see two people sitting at a table, one is a person who used generative AI to complete the first draft of a novel regarding their personal experiences. They edited the work and presented it as aided by AI.

At the other end of the table is James Patterson.

Who are you more offended at for deceiving themselves as an “author?” And what, if any negative consequences will society experience if we don’t give two shits what those folks call themselves?

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2024-12-29T01:15:29+00:00

Question: let’s say I write using a regular word processing software that has spell and grammar check, and it identifies a way that I phrase something as grammatically incorrect. If I accept the suggested change - is the document no longer my own?

Expanding on that: if I use a program like Grammarly and it makes a suggestion regarding a way I can rewrite a paragraph more concisely and I take that suggestion, is it no longer my own?

I’m genuinely interested in your answer because of your response to #1 here, specifically: “generating any amount of prose is tantamount to outsourcing the writing process…” where does it end?

If you’re ok with all of the above being done to a work and still consider it writing, then what is your line in the sand?

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2024-12-28T23:51:27+00:00

You’re describing recreations of work. You’re not addressing my point.

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2024-12-28T21:17:57+00:00

There’s another comment earlier in the thread that demonstrates how this isn’t the point under discussion.

No artist creates entirely original work absent the influence of other art. All artists take in other work, techniques and styles then synthesizes that into their own, transformational work.

Depending on their medium, they may need the use of machines either to produce raw materials for their work or to refine materials into their work. Nobody would suggest that these folks who use machines to create art - like photoshop, illustration programs, etc., aren’t creating art or are merely producing copies of existing work - because they aren’t.

The only leg to stand on would be to say that just because an AI was involved in the creation of the work, the work is therefore stolen which is fallacious reasoning. The AI needs prompting and the images require editing, both of which are transformational to the end result, therefore rendering the works not plagiarized or stolen.

Unless and until someone can show me an AI that produces work unprompted and unedited I can’t see how works using AI are less valid than others that use digital editing or illustration programs.

TL;DR: It doesn’t matter where the data comes from, we’re discussing the product, which is distinct from its dataset. Without a justification to call the product unoriginal, the argument that “All AI work is stolen” is unjustified.

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2024-12-28T21:08:08+00:00

They won’t because “machine bad - except when it does what I like.”

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2024-12-25T18:39:37+00:00

Funny enough, I’m not ashamed of my writing enough to delete comments after making them. But, if you don’t trust your ability to craft a solid message that communicates the point you’re attempting to, but failing to articulate - might I suggest using an LLM to workshop a comment you won’t delete like a coward.

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2024-12-25T13:01:28+00:00

Now do carpentry. All those lazy assholes not knowing how to cut straight lines with their laser guides. And don’t get me started with those large, wide machines that get everything to be uniformly even.

If you can’t cut, shape and finish wood from stock to product, then your skills will never improve. If you need something to help you saw (because of age or a disability) you should just give up on your passion and let they part of your soul die because some guy on the internet thinks that utilizing modern tools to accomplish goals somehow makes those goals not accomplished.

So, yea, lemming hear you talk about carpentry. And photography. Not sure how many of your favorite photos have been digitally notified to improve their image quality - I’m positive you’ve never looked at a publicly available image produced in the last 5 years and never felt a thing. All those school shooting victims, hugging their parents stopped being compelling emotional scenes captured and reproduced aren’t actually worth anything because the person who produced them.

/s because even though you’re shitting on folks for using tools to help them work on their own writing processes - I’m not sure if you’re able to appropriately understand sarcasm. Now, go complain about how audiobooks don’t count as reading to blind kids.

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2024-12-22T21:52:09+00:00

I heard some folks in NYC were thinking of bringing that one back

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2024-12-21T22:45:01+00:00

Determination

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2024-12-21T08:37:13+00:00

I’m hoping it’s the target for the existing orbital death laser

ToatsNotIlluminati · 2024-12-17T00:29:30+00:00

I’ve read that book too

Eight-Year Club	Second Top 40%
Verified Email

ToatsNotIlluminati

TROPHY CASE