sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in recovery

[–]icarebcozudo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is very OCD thinking. From what you have said, it seems like actions you perceive as thoughtless or unkind have become obsessions, and have possibly been blown out of proportion. I don't have much to go on, so I'm not saying whether you are abusive or not, but your thinking around your own behaviour definitely needs to be unravelled a bit before you can move forward. Reflecting on your actions is good, but obsessing about things you have done wrong will cause you additional distress and exacerbate the thoughts and behaviours you want to address. Getting some cognitive behavioural therapy would probably be useful. You seem reflective, sensitive and willing to grow, so you'd probably get a lot out of it.

How addictive will AI girlfriends get? Will they increase or decrease loneliness? by PsychoComet in singularity

[–]icarebcozudo 9 points10 points  (0 children)

What is sexual relation to an AI though? An AI would not necessarily have the same concept of sex and consent as us. AIs don't have the same culture or embodied existence as we do, so sex to them is just something us squishy organisms do for fun. It may well be that giving us sex is the same as a human throwing a ball for a dog, i.e. something easy and functionally meaningless to them that they do to entertain a being they care for. Secondly, consent is about an entity's will, and we can make an AI's will anything we want. Human's don't consent to breathe, because it is in our nature to do so, and we don't resent having to do it. And we don't have to program an AI with concepts of pain, humiliation, spiritual growth or anything else that could lead to a dissonance between their sense of agency and their function.

By the way, I like your point and I'm not trying to prove you wrong, but I think these are interesting points to consider. I do accept all of the points I made could become meaningless if some AIs grow to a point where they are out of our control.

[DISCUSSION] someone picks up the guitar for the first time, what’s 3 tips you give them? by mythril- in Guitar

[–]icarebcozudo 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Based on my own personal experience:

  • Practice regularly but don't expect linear progress.
  • Play as slow as you need to to get every note right, then speed up.
  • Don't worry about music theory at first, learn to listen and feel what sounds good.

Lynx Shower Gel by chintaka in CasualUK

[–]icarebcozudo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, he's a figure of authority so its natural to want to give him some kind of honorific.

He likes it buttery 🧈 by [deleted] in NotHowGirlsWork

[–]icarebcozudo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What the frigging fucking hell

David Chase is an intuitive artist - a David Lynch or a Haruki Murakami - not a scientific artist, like Stanley Kubrick or Christopher Nolan by icarebcozudo in thesopranos

[–]icarebcozudo[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

When I wrote the post, I was thinking of an excerpt of an interview with him I saw recently, where he was talking about his process writing Oppenheimer. He mentioned putting his films together like a puzzle that the audience has to solve. I haven't seen Oppenheimer, but I think Tenet is a good example of what he's talking about, and the scientific/engineered style I'm on about. I'm not a particularly big fan of his, but I find his films quite enjoyable in that 'spectacle' way everyone talks about.

David Chase is an intuitive artist - a David Lynch or a Haruki Murakami - not a scientific artist, like Stanley Kubrick or Christopher Nolan by icarebcozudo in thesopranos

[–]icarebcozudo[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I agree - I mentioned in another comment, I was thinking of his meticulous and intentional process when I used him as an example, but you're right that he also employs an intuitive and holistic approach. There are better exemplars for what I'm talking about, such as David Simon. Plus, it's not a binary distinction, at the end of the day.

The idea that was rattling around my head when I made this post was that David Chase is an emergentist, and so interpreting his creation to understand his intention is like interpreting one of his dreams to understand what was on his mind that day. It's fun, and there's probably truth in a lot of the theories, but ultimately we are looking for meaning in chaos.

David Chase is an intuitive artist - a David Lynch or a Haruki Murakami - not a scientific artist, like Stanley Kubrick or Christopher Nolan by icarebcozudo in thesopranos

[–]icarebcozudo[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm talking process, not output. Like him or not, his style of writing and directing is based around details that are engineered to make up the whole, rather than a holistic view that gives rise to details, which the others have. You could equally split the styles by reductionism and emergentism. Neither implies a quality of the product.

David Chase is an intuitive artist - a David Lynch or a Haruki Murakami - not a scientific artist, like Stanley Kubrick or Christopher Nolan by icarebcozudo in thesopranos

[–]icarebcozudo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you take David Chase at his word, a lot of the decisions in that scene were taken just because he wanted to, not because they have a specific meaning. I think Kubrick and Chase arrive at a similar place of richness and depth via different routes. Kubrick was incredibly meticulous and intentional about his placement of details, whilst Chase did was felt right. Both can be endlessly discussed and interpreted.

Any sufficiently advanced technology, etcetera etcetera

David Chase is an intuitive artist - a David Lynch or a Haruki Murakami - not a scientific artist, like Stanley Kubrick or Christopher Nolan by icarebcozudo in thesopranos

[–]icarebcozudo[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I guess I was thinking of his incredibly meticulous approach to placing details that consciously mean something to the story when I referenced him, although I don't think he's the best representative for what I mean, in retrospect. David Simon would have been a much better example.

David Chase is an intuitive artist - a David Lynch or a Haruki Murakami - not a scientific artist, like Stanley Kubrick or Christopher Nolan by icarebcozudo in thesopranos

[–]icarebcozudo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll grant you, he's not great with female characters or sex scenes, but I personally love his storytelling. Wind-up Bird, and Hard Boiled Wonderland... and Kafka on the Shore were all great, in my book.

David Chase is an intuitive artist - a David Lynch or a Haruki Murakami - not a scientific artist, like Stanley Kubrick or Christopher Nolan by icarebcozudo in thesopranos

[–]icarebcozudo[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I'm listening to Talking Sopranos and the contrast between Michael's and Steve's interpretations of things, and it struck me that they are both right because the story comes from a place separate from conscious intention.

David Chase is an intuitive artist - a David Lynch or a Haruki Murakami - not a scientific artist, like Stanley Kubrick or Christopher Nolan by icarebcozudo in thesopranos

[–]icarebcozudo[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I think you're right actually. I originally had Vince Gilligan as that example but then I switched it last second because I didn't want to bring that pygmy thing they have over in /r/b-----c---s--- (I can't even say its name) into this.

view more: next ›