DrugsBunny

@Leo Gura Haha, epic. What settings are you using? I can't get mine to turn out that specific. Or maybe you're just a better AI artist.

@AtheisticNonduality Are you familiar with the concept of the "technological singularity"? You say it will "never" compete with artistic geniuses such as Manson, but a rudimentary/simplistic algorithm for doing such would be as follows: 1. Create a human mind, containing biases, thought-patterns, emotional dispositions. 2. Give the mind a virtual avatar, containing a hyper-realistic appearance and vocal tonality. 3. Have the virtual human create art. A sufficiently powerful computer could do this process with not just a single human, but an entire society with 7 billion instantiations of artificial human beings. Then just select for the 1000 top humans of a specific field/genre, and you will have a result that out-performs modern artistic geniuses. You could also give these virtual humans far greater capabilities than ordinary human beings. This sounds far-fetched but many things we enjoy today were inconceivable a few hundred years ago.

"Worldview" as defined by Oxford dictionary: "a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world." Apparently, my perspective that the art market would shift if AI out-performs humans enables a devastating refutation of my entire worldview. Wow, what a time to be alive! @Leo Gura That looks awesome, is that supposed to be you on DMT or something? Here's a prompt you might consider, "/imagine [prompt]: Devastated artist staring at computer screen in horror as AI annihilates the obsolete artist's marketability".

@Leo Gura Hey, I'm happy it exists, just look at this trippy ass avatar I made. It's great. But for artists specifically, and those who are making money off their art, I think this ruins the market for them. I never said anything about the benefits of this for humanity, so with that bit of info cleared up we're basically on the same page. But yes, given your logic, I was correct to point out that this sucks for artists who make money.

"it's almost like you didn't read all 7 pages of the thread!! /facepalm x48" Lol, you okay bud? Speaking of trucks, truck drivers will soon be replaced by automation when cars can drive themselves. So for truck drivers specifically this can't be a good outcome for them. That's all I'm saying. I think this applies to the art too.

@Leo Gura Yeah but dude, I'm talking about the marketability of an artist's work once the technology becomes indistinguishable from human art. Imagine if you could just take the result of an AI output, select a part of the image, label it as a human, an arm, a leg, an eye, then use another remastering rendition to finely tune that specific element of the image. No hand-drawn precision needed, and the market for art changes entirely.

@Leo Gura I don't know how you could say that for certain. A year ago I did not think this technology would be as good as it is today, in 10 years we may see progress that was entirely unforeseeable.

@thepixelmonk From the perspective of simply creating art for the purpose of selling it, it seems to me that somebody would rather use an AI than spend money on something that requires human intelligence. Yeah maybe it can expand ones art-making potential, but at the same time would this technology not shift the marketability of an artist's work? I think this is a net-negative from that perspective.

@thepixelmonk We can only hope so. Now I'm confused. I was the 3rd person here to take issue with your posts. It seems you just have a very particular hate-boner for me. Is it really an egregious character flaw that I try to correct asinine views when I see them? It's true, I make no effort to spare your emotions in my blunt retorts, but that is a temperament that I specifically employ against the lowest of the low regarding political views.

@Raptorsin7 I actually would never specifically target a certain user on this forum. If ANYBODY posted this, I would be here to rebut it. It just so happens you post a lot of stuff that I find worthy of criticism. Oooof, looks like you're wrong about that one. Proof: https://www.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/comments/b9l58h/politics_podcast_takes_a_turn_scuffed_podcast/ What exactly makes me a degenerate? The fact that I have progressive politics? Seems like a really tenuous standard for throwing that word around so casually.

This is like the 3rd time I've seen you using your completed meditation retreat as a means to patronize others and place yourself on a pedestal. How does this not embarrass you? You get your politics from a literal neo-nazi like Nick Fuentes, so I think I still come out on top. Here's nick calling black people and jews degenerates. Funny to see you've picked up this tactic from him.

@zurew That much was obvious. If you take a closer look at your post, intentional or not, it suggests that you're siding with Nick Fuentes, because his views differ from what is commonly accepted. So saying "Just because ones views differ means they're the devil?" necessarily invites my interpretation of your post, no worries if you didn't catch that.

You're talking about a crass go-to phrase used by people seeking to justify pedophilia, and trying to validate it by invoking metaphysics about the illusory nature of time. Bruh where does Actualized find these people?

Of course not. It depends on the views. What you're describing is an embarrassingly crass simplification of moral denunciation. Here's Nick Fuentes coming out against the concept of interracial relationships. https://www.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/comments/b9l58h/politics_podcast_takes_a_turn_scuffed_podcast/ He refers to his fans as "Nickers" as a tactless means of alluding to a phonetically similar racial slur... He also uses the slur openly on his show which has been de-platformed from every major social media site. Here's Nick overwhelmed with excitement regarding republicans being openly racist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nuCO-4YIr8&t=128s He's an absolute banger where he confesses that Americans want a president who loves saying the N word. This is all par-for-the-course Nick Fuentes content, it didn't take long to find. There's much worse shit I could post if I actually cared to look for it.

Of course this dude watches Nick Fuentes. I knew you were a reactionary, but I didn't take you for a literal neo-nazi. If only the admins here were familiar with Nick Fuentes, then I could report the thread, but since they don't know he's a literal card-carrying, board-certified, unapologetic neo-nazi I guess we'll all have to suffer the deranged brain-rot of this thread until they figure it out.

I'm sympathetic, that sucks for artists. However, this thread prompted me to generate a trippy new avatar through AI. Honestly, I think Leo is too optimistic, this sucks for artists. I made this in like 1 minute with no art skills.

How is it that people who do consciousness work can still be duped by the pathetic likes of Andrew Tate?

I tripped on LSD yesterday and it felt like I had the opportunity to surrender fully to ego death if I wanted to. The only issue is, it felt quite uncomfortable. I'll be having a perfectly pleasant trip, feel myself beginning to get carried away by a trance, then anxiety kicks in. My best attempt to describe it would be like, it seems that my ego is comprised of a ton of tiny "nodes", or very miniscule elements of consciousness, almost like a pixel but not visible, and some nodes are inextricably connected with my "fear response" protocol in my brain. Even though there is no reason to feel fear, the nodes that evoke fear get triggered as I start to "surrender" then I back off and say "nah fuck this, I'll just meditate and quell this feeling before trying ego death". Is ego death supposed to evoke such a stark aversion? Just wanna make sure I'm doing this properly.

You really needed the benefit of additional editing and afterthought to complete this juvenile quip attempt? The transphobe community isn't sending their brightest. It's interesting you have chosen to contrive an unfounded narrative of my presupposed violent intent when there is nothing in my post history that would indicate that. It's as if Actualized hired a court jester for much needed comedic relief but got a bit more than it bargained for. Keep rolling out these absolute bangers haha, your posts are gold. My personal favorite is the one where you equated homosexuality with rape and murder.

@Yidaki Your questions have been sufficiently answered, but I suppose the egoic devastation of acknowledging the flaws of your perspective would be unflattering to accept.

@Yidaki Your first question is based in the misconception that they are solely responsible for making the decision. Were you under the impression that a doctor will just perform sex reassignment surgery after simply being requested by a confused teenager? No, absolutely not—this is not how it works—there is an extremely extensive process of psychotherapy and scientifically derived medical assessments intended to properly diagnose whether this will be in the person's best interest... It is also untrue that this is irreversible. If you can change your sex, what makes you think that you couldn't change it back? A simple google search of "reversal sex surgery" will easily demonstrate that you are coming into this matter with false perceptions. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27156012/ Your second question makes it very clear that you have fallen prey to a transphobic ideology. Did you actually fall for the false narrative that you can be prosecuted for accidentally misgendering someone? This has never happened. You can only be subject to legal trouble if, for instance, you work above a trans employee, and they can prove that you are excessively and intentionally harassing them by knowingly refusing to properly address them. This never happens, but if it did it would be indicative of a bigoted person engaging in persecution towards a marginalized class of people, in which case, yes, as an employer, you could find yourself in legal trouble, and rightfully so. Your questions have very obvious answers to them, and I reject the idea that asking questions is diametrically oppositional to having a bigoted perspective. Ever heard of the Jewish Question? *rolls eyes* Even though your questions have been sufficiently answered, I'm don't imagine you'll allow these answers to influence your perspective in the slightest, but hey, you're welcome to prove me wrong.

@Loba You'd likely be devastated by the epiphany of how sheepishly hypocritical you are if it ever somehow occurred to you.

Followed by: *Face-palm* First of all, most do take these steps, but what if altering ones physical appearance falls slightly out of an individual's range of comfortable activity? Your moral prescription here would have us deny their identity simply because YOU are uncomfortable accepting that gender is internal and not necessarily external. If they are truly the gender they describe themselves as, it will surely show up in their speech patterns, and other behavioral traits. My boyfriend (I'm a guy) is a trans guy who still has gorgeous boobies and a cute feminine face. I am physically attracted to females, but sentimentally fascinated by male energy, which is what my boyfriend provides for me flawlessly. I can tell they are a guy inside, yet their physical appearance could leave one guessing. If this makes you uncomfortable, that's not because of their flaws, it's due to your own closed-mindedness. I don't want to be abrasive but there's no other words to properly address your position here. Get used to it.

Can you think about what you just asked for even a second? Gender dysphoria means your body doesn't match your internal identity. There is no more dysphoria if your new body matches your identity sufficiently. We wouldn't gatekeep the right for them to identify as their internal identity behind the paywall of affording an expensive surgery... What exactly do you want us to do with the information provided in this "What is a woman" documentary? Do you actually have any prescriptive actions we should commit to on the basis of your position? Would you prefer that all trans people be forced to identify as the gender they were assigned at birth, and have more of them commit suicide because you won't afford them the courtesy of addressing them as their preferred gender? Matt Walsh is undeniably a bigot, and I assumed those credits transfer to those who bolster his messaging. If this was a faulty assumption I apologize, but frankly I don't think it is. The questions you're asking would be obvious if you actually had any sincere concern for these people.

Your question has already been answered. It would seem that you're not willing to accept the obvious answer to the inquiry you've made. Your mistake is assuming the word "apolitical" can't be used in a less rigid context. In this context, apolitical doesn't mean that the user is not interested in politics, as you're insisting it must mean. It means, within the domain of this forum, the user is literally apolitical in the sense that they are not permitted to engage in politics. What else would you call that? This isn't even a profound observation, nor a necessary scrutiny by any means; you're just demanding that your semantical usage of the word "apolitical" be the exclusive definition that everyone else uses.