I am also glad the
commercial niche illustration markets like Magic the Gathering are extremely hostile to AI art, though of course I would think Wizards of the Coast, the company that publishes MTG, probably see artists as a cost. Maybe.
Perhaps in the future artists will be used to train models that can output a certain style of art and the artist will receive royalties based on their influence on the trained model and its popularity.
Makes sense, though, doesn't it? An elephant's trunk is the fusion of its nose and upper lip, wouldn't that be the location where the mystacial vibrissae (whiskers) be located on any other mammal, making these homologous to e.g. cat's whiskers, which are highly sensitive?
sure, elephants exhibit material intelligence (whatever that means), but the individual whiskers? and also i thought cats whiskers could only determine the width rather than the texture of a gap theyre trying to fit through, though maybe cats also "feel" texture through whiskers
I loved There is no Antimemetics division. I haven't read the new updated to the end but the prose and writing is greatly improved. The idea of anomalous anti-memes is scary. I mean, we do have examples of them, somewhat, see Heaven's Gate and the Jonestown massacre, though they're more like "memes" than "antimemes" (we know what the ideas were and they weren't secrets).
I'm a bit disappointed all names are changed in the new edition. I understand that SCP-... had to become U-..., but I've grown attached to the character names, and they're all different!
I read the original version a few years ago and read the new version when it came out, and I thought that the name changes were pretty amusing. qntm kept the story as close to the original as possible while still making it a legally distinct work for copyright purposes. It's like those off-brand Froot Loops called "Fruit Spins" that are juuust different enough to not get into trademark issues. Except in Antimemetics' case, the "knockoff" version was made by the creator of the original, which I think is pretty funny.
The MS of today is actively reaping the benefits of the EEE & openly shady business years.
Their behavioural changes can be framed as an intentional reformation, but also as exhausting high-value targets, losing monopolies, and settling into profitable equilibrium out of necessity.
Modern competitors to MS are effectively immune to MS-EEE, in some cases by being way better at every aspect of it (MS IE is now delivered by Google based on forked Apple tech, and Office uses React, for quick examples…). MS pivoted to Azure-entanglements for their entrenched customers, which remains highly profitable, but have also had a marked decrease in engineering clout in certain key areas and still have a fragmented client/GUI ecosystem.
I’d contend they haven’t changed, they’re just cornered in ways they never were before so we see different behaviour. If MS controlled iOS or Facebook or WebKit or Search we’d see more classic plays reminding us who owns what.
Where I grew up in rural Ireland there was a haulage company based down a narrow single track road. You’d take your life in your hands going down that road at the best of times, never mind meeting a speeding articulated lorry. Eventually the county council made them build their own access to the main road.
The problem isn’t usually the narrow roads however, it’s the drivers everywhere who know there are no consequences for their behaviour.
I'm thinking of what the replication crisis means for figures like Jean Piaget and Marie Ainsworth. Go take a psych class and they'll be among the first you learn about. None of their stuff replicates. The curriculum I took at community college was mostly fake.
This looks like a reductive view of the field’s broad shifts from psychoanalysis to behaviorism, and again to cognitivism. The impact to practice in the 21st century has been minimal since the latter shift began in the mid-20th and most of the older intellectual vanguard are dead.
Alex, the bird mentioned in the article, is also the first animal ever to have asked a question. When shown its reflection in a mirror, it asked what color it was.
We've trained chimps and gorillas for decades and they have never asked a single question
Depends on the niche. Original physical art for trading card games or comics is a significant chunk of the income of your typical artist. Digital art in those niches does not have this source of income. But then again digital art has other niches where the actual commission rates are high enough to not make this a problem.
Indeed, as a kid of 10, I remember learning C/C++ thanks to DJGPP, a DOS port of GCC, being free software. I didn't have any money to buy a commercial compiler, though I never asked my parents. I wasn't sure how to frame the question, I guess. Well, regardless, getting your hands on a commercial compiler wasn't that difficult in the late 90s/early 00s. Soon after though small non-commercial indie games kinda died out and everyone was using DirectX using MSVC on Windows, until SDL came out.
SDL appeared in late 90s / early 00s, that's pretty much when it became popular (e.g. most early Loki Linux game ports from used SDL).
As far as compilers, Borland shipped a free version of their C++ Builder 5.5 compiler right around that time, too, so on Windows we had that in addition to MinGW.
Perhaps in the future artists will be used to train models that can output a certain style of art and the artist will receive royalties based on their influence on the trained model and its popularity.
reply