Flagged by AI for being lazy for being the one guy in the office who actually refills the coffee machine.

It is funny in a way that he included the Victorian Megaship thing, as imho that is a bad piece of art. As the ship doesn't properly work in various ways, that it looks so much like AI (including the nonsensical rigging, the weird perspective, the smaller boats on direct collision course, and all the other things that make no sense, size wise or wind direction wise), it just isn't that great. It also has that AI art feel where on first glance you go 'huh, that looks interesting' and then it gets worse and worse the longer you look at it. (which makes sense in some ways as it was a quick piece done by the artist).

Ah yes the (Content warning, Jordan B peterson, and NSFW) Jordan B Peterson china tweet. And yes, it was real, don't detox from drugs people!

I think it is that book yes, it started a lot of these things, and a lot of these people (im generalizing here, but the Tates are imho part of a long line of manosphere people who all do this kind of stuff, selling others courses into dropshipping, courses into setting up passive income streams, courses into getting laid/mindset etc. And it seems like the only thing they manage to really sell is courses. I don't think it is that complex an evolution more like the natural progression, of course they get into crypto and AI slop. I think the only real change of somebody like Tate vs the other weirdos who did this (somebody like Cernovic was also one of these people for example) is that Tate has a little bit of charisma for an important market segment (the under 18 year olds).

So we have this new tech that makes stuff up and also is a bit racist at times? Lets use it to monitor employees, of course it also trains to replace your job.

Thanks!

"You hate AI art? Well name all real paintings!" the blog post.

Also talking about the urinal "Art, it seems, is most meaningful when it challenges our very concept of what art is." No that was in 1917. Pretty sure that nowadays 'what is art even?' art is quite overdone and boring.

For example, future pro boxing matches will be performed by rock’em sock’em robots

As predicted by several science fiction movies iirc. (I'm ignoring the skin suits because oof mental image).

Just needs a guy who goes "if we don't build the automated grooming machine, somebody else will".

I'm just curious how many hits you would get if you searched for '4 hour work week', as iirc that is where all these people stole the idea from. (well, not totally, the idea they are stealing is selling others the idea of the 4 hour work week, but I hope you get what I mean, 4 hour work weeks all the way down).

Thanks for doing the hard work keeping it all running!

Well, at least they put down something. More than I expected.

And doing research on people? In this economy?

Post by Corbet the editor. "We get it: people wish that we had not highlighted work by this particular author. Had we known more about the person in question, we might have shied away from the topic. But the article is out now, it describes a bit of interesting technology, people have had their say, please let's leave it at that."

So you updated the article to reflect this right? padme.jpg

Watts has always been a bit of a weird vector. While he doesn't seem a far righter himself, he accidentally uses a lot of weird far right dogwhistles. (prob some cross contamination as some of these things are just scientific concepts (esp the r/K selection thing stood out very much to me in the rifters series, of course he has a phd in zoology, and the books predate the online hardcore racists discovering the idea by more than a decade, but still odd to me)).

To be very clear, I don't blame Watts for this, he is just a science fiction writer, a particularly gloomy one. The guy himself seems to be pretty ok (not a fan of trump for example).

Hold it right there criminal scum!

But things being real doesn't stop the cranks. See quantum.

Apologies for focusing on just one sentence of this article, but I feel like it's crucial to the overall argument:

... if [shrimp] suffer only 3% as intensely as we do ...

Does this proposition make sense? It's not obvious to me that we can assign percentage values to suffering, or compare it to human suffering, or treat the values in a linear fashion.

It reminds me of that vaguely absurd thought experiment where you compare one person undergoing a lifetime of intense torture vs billions upon billions of humans getting a fleck of dust in their eyes. I just cannot square choosing the former with my conscience. Maybe I'm too unimaginative to comprehend so many billions of bits of dust.

lol hahah.

Sadly it seems the next one is gonna be Quantum.

Not only is the universe a simulation, the Catholics just had it right, isnt that neat.

Ha very clever, but as quantum level effects only occur when somebody is looking at it, they dont have to simulate it at quark level all the time. I watched what the bleep do we know, im very smart.