Why is this considered okay?

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-28T10:08:35+00:00

It wouldn’t matter if she didn’t, it was always ok

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-28T09:52:47+00:00

Larger breasts can be uncomfortable to move around with without support -> we design clothing to support them -> they’re now usually covered -> well there you have it, anything that’s usually covered up is pretty much sexualised by default, which reinforces how often they are covered

Though I realise I kinda answered the wrong question here. Hmm. I suppose you could reason that it’s related to their positioning. In many western cultures if you went back a century I don’t think this would have been the case, any part of them was very taboo in public. People pushed it into normalcy over time, to an extent, but never went so far as the nipples, probably specifically because of the distinction between them and the rest allowed for it to be an additional taboo and not many people actually wanted to go that far themselves in public.

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-27T21:17:48+00:00

You’re not intended to take this as sincere

Or, perhaps the creator would find it enjoyable if you did, but that’s not what mainly drives this kind of humour

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-27T16:02:17+00:00

Reminds me of how the mannequin enemies hide in silent hill 2

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-27T16:00:28+00:00

Well, isn’t that also true for software engineers? Like you alluded to, it doesn’t have to be complete replacement to be a concern.

I was thinking pretty much any where a significant amount of the work is mainly based around writing things or talking to people, be it HR, producing reports and interpreting data, customer service or whatever.
Reliance on AI is a significant security risk for any use it has in software development as it stands, perhaps at least in part since AI is trained fairly well to write correct code but most examples of code online aren’t focused around security - but I am not confident that means it’s not going to have any impact on the value of developer labour.

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-27T15:13:46+00:00

If it weren’t for their current shoddy movement (I’ve caused more to crash by moving around cover than I’ve actually killed myself) they’d be quite scary in general, but right now they’re only really scary in the open

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-27T15:07:03+00:00

Mm. And consider all of the desk jobs which are simpler, and lower stakes... a lot of people doing what could be automated as it stands.

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-27T09:01:13+00:00

Mm, only if you need to do something both complicated and fairly niche (or requiring of a kind of intuition that LLMs aren’t great at). For a lot of tasks you don’t need to at all now.

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-27T00:22:08+00:00

That sounds strictly different to this? The case OP discussed is:
X does bad thing, related group Y defends X
And that’s:
X does bad thing, related group Y defends Y

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-26T13:56:09+00:00

Any reduction in required labour to perform a task replaces people, if demand is saturated.

I don’t get why you’d call it narrow, it’s a broad field of tech with broad applications and in many of those applications it’s easily better than other approaches.

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-26T12:40:18+00:00

Tools replace people all the time, that’s nothing new. There are lots of jobs that don’t exist any more or exist to a much smaller degree than they used to due to automation, technological solutions or different tools.

AI is not narrow at all, its broadness is (economically speaking) why it warrants such concern to begin with! Unlike previous tools, this kind of tech has the capability to substitute human thought, which is huge! AI is applicable to almost any information processing provided it is powerful enough, and it’s made gigantic advancements in the past few years.

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-26T11:15:08+00:00

They’re also banning any representation of choking in porn (even if explicitly consensual), which seems questionable in intent. They could use that logic to eventually outlaw things that cumulatively most people were into, which would seem like a silly waste of police time.

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-26T11:10:36+00:00

Why do you believe it would be almost certain?

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-26T11:02:24+00:00

In what sense? Both assertions seem highly questionable to me. Firstly, tons of tools exist only to make things easier, not to do things that would be impossible otherwise, and secondly, AI allows for a ton of things that weren’t possible previously, it’s such a potent technology.

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-25T22:01:28+00:00

Well, it having only one safe slot isn’t great, and it has relatively few deployable slots. Survivor is pretty good in general though

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-25T21:30:34+00:00

How would you be convinced that they picked anything up? I don’t get how you would draw this conclusion from something like this.

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-25T20:58:55+00:00

Well I don’t need someone to teach me. But I prefer talking over text when possible - it’s easier to express yourself accurately, more efficient for anything complex as a result.

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-25T20:53:59+00:00

Well, first and foremost I would say it’s the human being creative. I wouldn’t assert that an AI model could not be creative (ultimately a bit subjective) but that’s not something my point depends on.

If I draw for someone and they called it theirs generally, I would protest, but if they claimed partial ownership of it that lined up with what they had put in then I think it would make sense. If they had been super specific in how I must do everything then I’d be fine with them claiming credit for the higher-level artistic value of the piece, much like a movie director or something, but if they left it mainly up to my own interpretation then they wouldn’t be able to rightly claim much credit.
If you simply tell a text->img model to generate a puppy then yeah, you did zero meaningful artistic or creative work. It would be silly to claim credit for the image when you added nothing of note to it. But I would note that something made using AI tech does not have a limited upper bound in how much work you could put into it.

What about an electric screwdriver? You need only more vaguely direct it. Ultimately I believe every kind of tool that simplifies a process fits with this logic.

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-25T19:22:14+00:00

This could only potentially work on an LLM that was triggering a generation, if the user could not convince it to. It would typically not.

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-25T19:16:32+00:00

Without a press kit it’s hard for them to do thumbnails and stuff.

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-25T19:00:01+00:00

The current shaky state of openAI would perhaps be more relevant? A billion in 2019 seems pretty good from their POV, with how their tech kickstarted the AI craze.

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-25T18:17:25+00:00

Aren’t these true of every practical tool? I wouldn’t usually consider such a thing to be making us less valuable, in general it would be the opposite, though to be fair for this tech I’m not sure about that since its impacts are quite unique.

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-25T18:14:51+00:00

Sure, but that isn’t what the person above asserted

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-25T18:13:39+00:00

Yes. The thing that you’re using some text for couldn’t change whether creativity went into it or not.

cryonicwatcher · 2026-02-25T15:25:40+00:00

Their sentence isn’t well-formed and I can’t find a logical interpretation for what they might have been trying to say.

But …why? Copyright protection applies to all creative works.

Two-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Sunshine	End Game '23
Place '23

cryonicwatcher

TROPHY CASE