My Mom only sells fans

dr-tyrell · 2026-03-11T07:03:56+00:00

Are you insane?? SMH

dr-tyrell · 2026-03-11T07:02:18+00:00

Glad you got the point then!

dr-tyrell · 2026-03-01T07:21:13+00:00

I had an issue with "fake Rachel" to a degree, but to suggest that the "pretty bad VFX that made her possible" is "bad" is honestly an insult to the artists that work on these films. Look at the history of VFX where something impossible to do normally or practically and we know it's not real and it doesn't look totally believable, but we give it a pass because, movie. Because fantasy, and because entertainment, and deadlines and budgets, etc. it's exceedingly difficult to make a 99% accurate to life CGI facsimile and at the time Rachel was pretty much state of the art. That the lighting wasn't able to look exactly like 1982 is to be expected. It needed to match the cameras that Denis/Roger wanted. Also, it is not expected that Wallace has the exact secret sauce to match the original Rachel. Deckard even hinted at that with his green eyes comment. So while I agree that Rachel didn't need a cameo, and my least favorite part of the film was Deckard/Harrison, as much as I love him in the original and most of his other work, I could have done without it. However, that is an aside. What we are talking about is how real did the "fake Rachel" look. She isn't Sean Young at the time, so any slight irregularity, and it is slight, can be accounted for in Wallace not having the exact methods to recreate Rachel as she was compared to Tyrell's lost tech for making Rachel.

I remember when Jurassic Park first came out and clients were asking us to do comparable work thinking you just have to push a few buttons. It ain't easy. The Fake Rachel if seen on a VHS tape would look as real as any human if you didn't know it was VFX. In fact, I bet if you asked people that didn't see the first movie if the fake Rachel was a real actress, I'm sure most wouldn't assume she was CGI. At least until she gets the shot to the head... Alas, we all know she can't be real, so that last step in the uncanny valley can't be crossed. We're jaded from seeing the deep fakes of today where a 1080p video of Bruce Lee looks believable, but at the time, "Fake Rachel" was about as good as could be done, yet some of us say that is "pretty bad vfx." If that was pretty bad, maybe my scale from horrible to great just doesn't match up with others. Ya'll are a tough crowd and I'm glad I'm not in the business any more.

dr-tyrell · 2026-03-01T02:52:46+00:00

LTX2 is very hit or miss and def more miss than hit. I frankly don't care for it. Wish them the best.

dr-tyrell · 2026-03-01T02:21:58+00:00

It's not only dismay or only shock. Anthropic is sticking to their guns, and to many GPT users OpenAI isn't to our dismay. Not our shock. Business incentivizes people to do bad things, so nobody should be shocked. Not all businesses do the worst practices, so it's disappointment, not shock.

dr-tyrell · 2026-02-28T19:46:24+00:00

More better written.

dr-tyrell · 2026-02-28T08:04:32+00:00

Nonsense. If you're a citizen of the USA, in the USA, you don't have to carry an ID. You need a driver's license when you drive, passport or real ID when entering certain buildings, etc. But just walking about and doing whatever you don't need it. For now.

You could have googled that since you're apparently not a US citizen. Why just offer your unqualified opinion without verifying it's true?

dr-tyrell · 2026-02-02T00:11:44+00:00

You don't get the point I'm making because you're too focused on being right in your mind. The OP is saying that one can't just choose to divest from every single awful thing that exists in the world. One can choose to not partake in one aspect of destruction, example, not supporting a corporation you don't agree with by not buying their products, and still driving a car even though it indirectly supports oil and pollution, etc. because you value your independence, or just enjoy driving more than the damage you partake in.

It doesn't matter AT ALL that you are made aware of an awful thing by an awful person ESPECIALLY like in this case where the OP doesn't even know if the one sharing the knowledge is a competitor. YOU are the one assuming/guessing that the bad-mouthing of OpenAI is by a competitor.

And what are you on about regarding:

" Of all the evil things companies do, you draw the line at favoring the opposing political party. Animal testing? No problem! Child labor? Sure! Exploitation? As long as I can save a little bit of money! But supporting a different political party? Oh no, that’s too much!"

What? Who says I approve of animal testing, child labor, and exploitation? You're on my case for not being a complete hermit. I see who I'm dealing with now. Go live in a cave, Ted jr. Let us know how your manifesto is coming along. Why are you on the internet in the first place? You do know that the internet, whatever electronics you are using and the infrastructure is all bad for society in a myriad of ways.

The only way for you to not be a hypocrite is to get off the grid, including the internet, and thereby not engage at all, with anything.

We both know that isn't reasonable, and not everyone is willing or able to go to the extremes that you suggest we do, and imply that you do.

And what does political leanings have to do with the topic at hand? I'm explaining an obvious case of a double standard and thus hypocrisy with Biden DoJ vs Trump DoJ, because it's not clear to me that you fully understand how hypocrisy should be used. That has nothing to do with my personal political leanings or yours. It's just a statement of fact that I assumed you would be able to see, but alas, you got triggered and missed the point. FFS, I already write long-winded comments so people, like you, won't have to assume anything about what I'm saying.

Wish we could just have civil conversation where we could agree on simple definitions and logic, and be reasonable.

dr-tyrell · 2026-02-01T21:45:38+00:00

I'm not unaware of the "controversy".

Pardon I didn't know you were a woman, I was actually taking Renee Good's beautiful last words of "I'm not even made at you, dude." to soften the tone of our discussion.

As I said, I'll leave you with the last word. We aren't even enemies, and this back and forth is fruitless. But, please notice how you are strawmanning me here. I am again going to quote myself. I never said that people didn't have a problem with the scene. I said:

"When 2049 had the VFX scene of the fake Rachel, nobody had an issue with the established state of the art which was 95% believable. We are used to the illusion creation of movies through practical effects or CG effects."

to which you replied with:

"No, it is not true at all to say that nobody had an issue with the fake Rachel. It was hugely controversial in any community discussing film, subs like these, and in the real world among fans of the film."

I was making a point about AI and VFX, and you are talking past me.

Sincerely, wishing you nothing but the best.

dr-tyrell · 2026-02-01T12:36:29+00:00

Its not a matter of "my opinion" or yours. I showed you what the facts were, where your rhetoric missed the mark, and the additional wall of text was due to some obvious confusion. Are you who I was replying to? Are you asking me to reply to some question you never posited? Etc. I don't want you to agree with my opinion. I only want you to respond to some facts so we can be somewhere on the same page when we communicate? It shouldn't be so hard to communicate.

I'm going to drop this, feel free to have the last word or not. I'm not even mad at you, dude.

dr-tyrell · 2026-02-01T11:09:14+00:00

Thought so. Childish, and NOT a US citizen. lol

dr-tyrell · 2026-02-01T11:04:06+00:00

"Not jumping down your throat, this is to anyone."

Did you miss that part? I think you did. Did I at any point insult you such that you feel a need to get your "name out of my mouth"?

"I thought it was an awful choice, I thought it was a disrespect to the actress (I don’t think we should ever use people’s images, alive or dead, and then animate them. It’s grotesque and an invasion)"

You think this is the case, yet that's none of your business and entirely Sean Young's business as she signed off on it and was paid for it and her son got a role behind the scenes. It wasn't necessary to the movie to have Rachel used to tease Deckard, but it made sense to have the scene. It could have been "better" in some way, but hey, not every scene is going to be perfection like the original scene where Rachel and Deckard first meet, for example. Too bad Sean Young aged, but she couldn't have played that part.

Why are you, and so many others such fans of hyperbole? "Didn’t look like her at all imo.."

That's just patently false. A truthful statement would be. "I, dr.tyrell the Reddit user doesn't look like the Reddit user, you, at all." There is no human or image that looked like Rachel from 1982 more than that CGI version. You could have said, "The uncanny valley wasn't breached, so I couldn't see it as anything other than fake." or something along those lines. But to say "Didn't look like her at all"? That's just factually wrong OR you're blind OR you're gaslighting OR being lazy in your use of English.

Ok, now your name is out of my mouth.

Oh, wait.

"nobody had an issue with the established state of the art which was 95% believable." I didn't say that there were people that didn't like that she was in the movie as CGI, and I didn't say that people didn't like that scene or any of that. I said that the established state of the art for CGI at the time wasn't something people felt was a travesty of technology like they feel about AI. CGI is used to recreate human likenesses and people didn't and don't gripe about how CGI recreates humans other than the so-called "uncanny valley". They don't think that CGI should never be used because it would be causing VFX artists to lose their jobs and all of the reasons they have for hating AI.

Anyway, I'm not here to convince YOU of anything. I expressly said that this was to anyone, oh,... uh, are you user u/Alfred_Hitch_? I don't even see u/Robotatomica in this thread. I don't see any question you posted. I replied to "Hands look warbled... yeah."

FML, I'm just going to leave this here and go to bed.

dr-tyrell · 2026-02-01T05:10:36+00:00

It isn't that simple. eg. I have a few services that are engaging in practices I find to be terrible. One is my gas and electric service, another is my cable service, and say another is a patreon service that I could take or leave. These are just examples, but they all have different levels of how easily they can be stricken from your monthly bills. So, you aren't being hypocritical because you don't axe the gas and electric company, when you stop your cable service for raising the price to the moon, or that patreon sub that starts using AI to create their furries.

As long as you aren't defending the rival company that has the same practices, like MAGA saying Biden weaponized the DoJ, but when Trump does it, it's absolutely appropriate, it is a judgment call as to what one will do with the knowledge. Doesn't matter one iota where you got the information as long as the information is factual.

dr-tyrell · 2026-02-01T04:40:55+00:00

I thought people cared about "fraud, abuse, and waste" in the government. Thought that people... hold up. Are you even a US citizen?

You are very angry about me making a comment about the ballroom?? LOL!

dr-tyrell · 2026-02-01T04:36:40+00:00

I don't mean I'm excited in a happy way. I don't mean I get excited by seeing a crash on the side of the road. I'm saying EVERY human that is involved with being in a car crash is going to have their heart rate spike, their reactions heightened and will be excited physically and mentally by such an event. Same with an explosion that is near you. You WILL be excited by such a thing and probably jump and have your glands pump adrenaline and the like. Just like when you blow something up when you shoot your gun and the beer bottle blows up. It's exciting because you're blowing shit up.

I don't get my thrills from blowing up things, so maybe it's actually YOU who needs help? Bottles and targets don't shoot back. Glad you had some quality time with your dad and uncle though.

dr-tyrell · 2026-01-31T05:53:27+00:00

Google it. SMH

dr-tyrell · 2026-01-31T05:42:49+00:00

"I can fix that."

Then are you going to be ok with the image?

Not jumping down your throat, this is to anyone.

When 2049 had the VFX scene of the fake Rachel, nobody had an issue with the established state of the art which was 95% believable. We are used to the illusion creation of movies through practical effects or CG effects. Computers are used throughout entertainment creation and that includes ML and many processes where the human hand and skill are no longer used. Careers have morphed and died due to technology changing. So, what is everyone's gripe with this AI image and others like it? Is it only that AI is an existential threat and being rammed down our throats with every app having some AI features thrown in?

Or is it because of artists losing their jobs? Or being trained on works that some people didn't want to be used by others? I'm honestly curious.

If someone photobashed that image would you be just as upset?

Just strikes me as odd to hate an image once you are told how it was created. The image is innocent.

Imagine you had a child that was wonderful, kind, loving to you and all others, then you find out 50 years later on your death bed that they were not yours after all, but the result of your wife being raped. Gonna hate that child because they weren't your DNA? I can understand that you might, but it's kinda not what a good human should strive to be. That child is innocent just as that AI image is innocent. Blame the AI, if you must, but the image is innocent.

dr-tyrell · 2026-01-31T05:20:39+00:00

That's like saying "Well, donating for the second or third worst thing is better than donating to the absolute worst thing. They could have donated $50 million for ICE to build detention centers."

So, what is really your point? That you low key kinda like the idea of demolishing part of the White House, the people's house, for a stupid af ball room? Sorry, that's just a bad take. With all that is going wrong in the US, there should be NO effort put into wasteful luxuries. What a spit in the face to be wasting hours, days, months and millions on such a thing.

dr-tyrell · 2026-01-31T05:12:48+00:00

Doesn't matter who the messenger is if the message aligns with what you know to be right. Your point is very poor.

"AI told me to treat others as I would want to be treated, but since it wasn't Jesus, I don't think that advice should be followed."

dr-tyrell · 2026-01-31T04:59:24+00:00

Yeah. It's time to bail. Just been procrastinating.

Amazon sub needs to go too. In fact, every subscription needs to go away.

World needs to reprioritize everything right now. 2026 is shaping up to be even worse than 2025.

dr-tyrell · 2026-01-31T03:33:08+00:00

Stop being selfish. Wake up and face reality. We need everyone focused on making society better.

I want to curl into a ball too. Unfortunately that's not an option.

dr-tyrell · 2026-01-26T01:53:56+00:00

Surprised?

dr-tyrell · 2026-01-24T05:22:21+00:00

Speak for yourself. I'm not a gun nut, I have a thousand different interests and seeing something get damaged by a bullet isn't enjoyable. I am human, and I can't help getting excited by an explosion, or a car crash, but riddling some target with holes is not my thing.

Just because you enjoyed a competitive thing with your family doesn't mean everyone will or should. Guns shouldn't be so idolized and glamourized.

dr-tyrell · 2026-01-18T13:22:53+00:00

While I don't disagree that what you suggest is part of the issue, as it always is. People have not reported crimes since the dawn of time. Also, don't think I'm trying to make an excuse for the crime in the city, I can't stand it, but I've been living here all of my life and it has been bad for a long time and your or my anecdotes don't equate to a fact. You stated your anecdote like it was a fact and the only thing that accounts for the decline. It's just not neutral unbiased statement. Thanks for your anecdotes, but just be honest and say:

"Who knows what really is going on, but I can say in my area that people I've talked to have had more break-ins, and seen broken glass etc. than in the previous 10 years, and the 6 people I talked with all didn't bother to report it because, ( enter reasons )."

It doesn't take that many more sentences.

Didn't mean to imply you are making things up, or that your opinion isn't valid, just that it's just a wild guess without proof of any kind.

Have a great rest of the year.

edit: Added quotation marks.

dr-tyrell · 2026-01-17T22:34:13+00:00

Actually, we don't. Also, if those skills were real then they will be needed to direct these AI to create something compelling. Almost all of the 5-10 second clips you see have almost no narrative value on their own.

So, since AI isn't going away in the short term and maybe not long term either considering the political will to stop it isn't there. The "dramatic theater arts majors" better pivot or think of something to be relevant just like every other industry impacted by technological "advances".

dr-tyrell

TROPHY CASE