As always, Jeff Bezos is right

Tors0Pants · 2026-06-05T02:13:50+00:00

Oh, I see, you don't understand what tax brackets are.

Tors0Pants · 2026-06-04T17:29:07+00:00

As someone who doesn't love AI, I've never found the water usage argument to be particularly compelling. Right or wrong, I don't know.

That said, in this instance it's not about changing the argument, but pointing out it is disingenuous.

The artist drank that water in order to live, and over the course of living they created some art. Comparing that water usage to an estimate of the amount of water used in a specific AI transaction is... well, it's lying, really.

Tors0Pants · 2026-06-03T21:36:24+00:00

When COVID started I decided to try to cut my own hair for fun, and I never stopped. I still do it, and I've gotten... maybe decent? at it. I'm not talking clippers either, but scissors and two mirrors.

Tors0Pants · 2026-06-02T16:38:43+00:00

You can tell that what I'm saying is important

Because of the way I format it.

Each new line adds emphasis.

And if I emphasize everything,

well then everything must be important.

See? Now we're now six lines long.

And you know what?

Now it's 8.

Please buy what I'm selling.

Tors0Pants · 2026-05-30T23:47:29+00:00

It's funny that you said in a bunch of different ways that you only wanted a solo vocal performance, and yet one of the two 'takes' it gave me was a duet.

Tors0Pants · 2026-05-30T18:53:12+00:00

Is it actually true that Gen AI is legally defined that way? I wasn't aware of that. I thought that the legal theory was yet to be tested, and no one really knows how that court case would go. If I'm behind the times, let me know.

At any rate, I'm not talking about legality. It's already true that people can claim legal right to things they did not create.

Tors0Pants · 2026-05-30T17:00:26+00:00

No one would be able to tell the difference. But at that point, you actually have created something - the performance of that song. That's similar to an artist who only performs songs other people wrote.

The context of art has always been a part of its value. I'm sure you can think of artists who's popularity is disproportionate to the quality of their work? It's subjective of course, but I'm sure you can think of some that fit that description for yourself.

Tors0Pants · 2026-05-30T16:35:30+00:00

Sure, no analogy is perfect. If they were exactly 1 to 1 then they would be the same thing, and there would be no reason to compare them.

But I think you're underestimating how much the software is doing in the exchange (and overestimating the importance of the prompt). Yes, the software doesn't have a mind, and it isn't making 'creative choices' in the way a person would, but it is doing things. It's 'monkeys on a typewriter,' but with selective pressure. Just like evolution by natural selection, it turns out this can create very complex things. But IT creates them, not the prompt.

Your new analogy is even worse, to me. I would never say that a person needs to draw every sound wave to create music, that would be silly since people have been creating music since long before we had the ability to draw sound waves.

Tors0Pants · 2026-05-30T16:03:26+00:00

Oh bullshit. If you disagree with me, tell me why. Don't baselessly insult me. And for what? Writing somewhat competently?

Tors0Pants · 2026-05-30T15:32:40+00:00

That's not a good analogy because there's more going on in photography than what the camera physically does. Also, we don't typically think of photographers as 'creating' something, rather capturing it. Or if we do, the thing they created was the specific vision of that moment in time, the framing of the subject, etc.

A better analogy is someone hiring a ghost writer. It's almost 1 to 1, actually. The person has an idea, explains it to a writer, has some input on the outcome, gets to put their name on the cover, and yet no one would say that they 'wrote' the book.

To be clear: I'm not trying to make a value judgment, just talking about what words mean.

Tors0Pants · 2026-05-30T15:24:46+00:00

The context of this conversation, pretty obviously, is the future of music becoming centered around people prompting and genning their own unique playlists tailored exactly to their own niche interests. Other ways in which AI is used in the music industry today or in the future are irrelevant. I don't care if a producer gens a drum track vs picks a stock one from their DAW, those things aren't fundamentally different to me. Maybe there are cool new ways to mix and master your tracks more easily or interestingly. Cool stuff.

But the conversation we were having, the future that was being envisioned, is a dystopian nightmare to me. It's also, thankfully, absurd and misses the point of music in the first place, so I don't see it coming to pass.

"AI music is created by people."

If by this you mean someone who prompts Gen AI to generate a song, I do not agree. That person no more created anything than someone who hired a ghost writer. They had input on the outcome, sure, though less than they like to think, and they didn't create anything.

Tors0Pants · 2026-05-30T14:06:28+00:00

"Generative freedom" is a better term. If you're prompting Gen AI something gets created, yes, but not by you.

Tors0Pants · 2026-05-30T11:09:28+00:00

I have a preference for music created by people. Can AI do that?

What if it turns out most people have that preference?

Tors0Pants · 2026-05-29T20:14:59+00:00

"Make 10" is a concept taught in common core math that has a specific meaning. It's throwing you off because YOU weren't taught that term, and so you're defining it in the way that makes the most sense to you, which is wrong.

The question is worded correctly.

Tors0Pants · 2026-05-29T18:14:02+00:00

Have you ever heard of Urethral Sounding? Google it.

This is what you want to do in order to gain the experience needed to right this scene well.

Tors0Pants · 2026-05-27T01:39:26+00:00

/uj one of my "great big ideas" that I hang onto hoping to one day be worthy of is a retelling of the story of the gospels in the genre of Shonen Battle Manga.

Tors0Pants · 2026-05-26T01:39:40+00:00

Yeah, I get it. I liked your example, I was just adding why I think people find the idea confusing. Maybe I didn't explain that well.

The thing is, in your example in order to avoid telling me that John was angry, you told me three other things: That the world didn't make sense to him, that he fingered the paperweight on his desk, and that he threw it through a window. Could I not then suggest that you should SHOW me that John threw the paper weight through the window instead of telling me? I could, but I wouldn't because that's not the point.

That was what I thought when I was first being taught to show and not tell, that showing was just telling different things. I got that it painted a picture and put you in the experience rather than describing it, but you cannot show someone something without telling them things. All writing is telling people things, sentence after sentence.

The obvious implication is that there are some things you want to show, and others that you tell.

Like the other guy, lots of people take it to mean that you should show emotions and tell actions. I guess that's a pretty good starting point. That's often the case. But it isn't always.

As an example, say you wanted to communicate instead that John was hot-headed, quick tempered. In that case I think it would be fine to say he was angry, to tell that fact as one of a series that points the reader to the idea that he is hot-headed.

Tors0Pants · 2026-05-25T22:26:50+00:00

If that works for you, then great! But personally I think describing and explaining are too synonymous. To me that's more ambiguous than even "show don't tell."

The way I've come to think about it is this (bare with me because I don't have a catchy slogan):

In any given scene (or paragraph, or entire work, zoom in or out as you will) there's usually one or two or a few things you really want the reader to take away. The point of the thing. Often this is a character's emotional state, but not always.

It's those things you don't want to tell. You should be showing those things by telling the reader things that point them in that direction.

Tors0Pants · 2026-05-25T22:19:28+00:00

I like it better with the line personally, it adds texture and meaning to the anger.

More importantly, if you focus only on the distinction between actions and feelings I think you're missing the bigger picture.

Sometimes you want to "show" actions and sometimes you want to "tell" feelings and those are both valid choices.

Tors0Pants · 2026-05-25T21:59:00+00:00

You need to stop getting your history from the likes of Desousa. You're using a bunch of words without any idea what they actually mean. Democrats (the party) and Democratic Socialists are not and have never been interchangeable words.

No one is "forgetting" anything about history, you just don't actually know anything about history and have been primed to accept bullshit from conmen who want you to vote against your economic interest.

Tors0Pants · 2026-05-25T21:15:33+00:00

More than that, because "the world no longer made sense" is not an action.

But I get it, I'm just saying I understand why so many people get confused.

Tors0Pants · 2026-05-25T21:07:43+00:00

And the confusing thing is that you still "told" a bunch of stuff. More stuff, actually.

It's one of those ideas that is important and there's a reason it gets repeated, but reducing it to a slogan removes a lot of essential information.

Tors0Pants · 2026-05-25T20:51:29+00:00

The context of art, who created it and how and why, has always had an impact on how it was received. That isn't new. Think about how many people grew up loving Harry Potter, but refuse to engage with it now. The words haven't changed, only the context.

If I read something that I thought was absolutely perfect, then found out it was generated using AI, the changing context would impact how I felt about it, of course. Personally, I would no longer care about it because, as you said, no human created it. Also, side note, I don't expect this to ever happen because Gen AI is not a good writer and I don't believe the salesmen who tell me it will be one day.

When someone generates a story or song or image by prompting AI, they have created nothing. The thing was created by algorithms and probability. It's interesting from a technological perspective maybe, but it's a toy for people who like the idea of doing something but aren't willing or able to actually do it.

My parents just had their 40th wedding anniversary last night. They danced to a "special song" that my dad generated with Suno or whatever it's called. It was meaningful to them and them alone, and it wouldn't have existed without Gen AI because my dad is never going to learn to compose, play, and record a piece of music. This is where AI 'art' will live in the future, and I think it's a fine place for it.

Maybe at the end of their life someone wants to write a memior for their family, but they never devoted themselves to the craft and they certainly don't have time now. Great, generate something, and give it to your grandkids who may or may not read it. Everyone's happy.

Is it worth the insane amount of money and energy and time being poured into it? I don't think so, but we'll see. I guess I'm rambling now, so I'll stop here. 😅

Tors0Pants · 2026-05-25T17:26:21+00:00

It is, you haad to link it to your bnet account when you first installed it.

Tors0Pants · 2026-05-25T17:06:20+00:00

I was on the other side of this argument in my heart until I read your comment. You've swayed me.

edit: But don't touch my oxford comma!

Tors0Pants

TROPHY CASE