S***s AI Udemy Review, and other clarifications

(I'll never sketch myself as the nostalgia critic again, and it's not even a coherent expression because it's old stuff, yet.)

Time to describe a bad decision. Following from Seth's Claude Dog Post , I've deliberately postponed this review.

Short version: I've tried my best to not make this an entertainment spectacle by making it into a format video with bells and whistles. Course I took is off-the-mark, and I don't recommend, I then think more about Licence quoting a Cryptography guy and calling it. Due to the illiteracy of licensing, I had to rewrite my TOS.

Longer version

I bought a course by Seth. I'm not convinced with my wabi-sabi tendencies.
I buy it so you don't have to! I'm going through my disagreements and snorting book reviews. Maybe out of parasocial relationship, I've decided to buy his silly course on AI.

Welp, Here are 35 pounds discounted. I could not resist. Most interesting was building a career without AI. Comparing it with the weather and the species like Kevin Kelly. Yet here we go with a another movement I cannot predict.

Then I was recommended of Midjourney and Claude from Seth, and to put it on Youtube, youch. I haven't been into perplexity as it was.

With the ideas here, I'm certain that he's going somewhere here with a workable plan. He had going with something with productivity and value and why others must go and be impresario. A leader and not a follower (ain't that what entrepreneurs do?) Yet, urgh. It's still 85 quid now of this writing.

Axiological arguments of value creation do not apply to a Taylorist Industrialist, by the way, I think he notes that himself, yet that means that with are own urbanism that we are inter-meshed now it's a subject to be explored. That he did within his song of sigificance, 

He then goes into tasks and projects, within how that such a thing will be driven my freelancer cobbler automation and that clients concerned about productivity by the industrialist would as Henry Ford, those are thoughts are another time.

He claims lawyers certain professions aren't gone out of in five years real estate broker, truck driver, a pharmacist, a daycare worker is inconceivably not going to be replaced.

So now I cover with better uses of what techno-domnion and techno-affliation with such a mindless thing, he draws on deterministic free will and Daniel Dennet's Intentional stance. Oh, He also makes a claim that people don't go to Hackneyed Movies from Hollywood any more, I get not courting their opinion. Yet, Disney get's traction.

What can happen with this though is Seth's attraction with determinism as a position compared to Dennet's Compatiblism in regard to interpreting free will when it comes to comparing this tech with autonomy.

I ended up writing the review. (It's going to be licence ramblings from now on. Already done it.

"As a wabisabi illustrator, Independent. The implications of using AI have reached wildfire within anti-ai, I hope copyright cases get turned down because being into creative commons licensing, attempting to out-license it ain't going to work. It's nice to see somebody try to cool the flames down.

It's inevitable that in our times, though, I guess illustrators are either going to embrace or walk the opposite direction.  Impresarios such as us.

I mean, What will happen with disconnection of this day and age. I do hope that there going to be more essays that don't muddy the waters.

Brings me back to Niel Postman's Technopoly, that's such a thing. What the implications with our own designs such as it will pursue the conflicts here. You're thoughts on Henry Ford are poignant.

Thanks."

Got my Certificate, eh, yeah. There's that credentialism that's apparently I have to show now. Ugh, Udemy.

Am I supposed to be proud?

Further notes.

Technopoly out of all the technological books, this felt the most relevant to what's happening today. Even with the last two. This was, despite the disagreement western bias of Cold War terms, eeriey similar to Alex Avile reported on within the second video.

Well, thanks, I guess. I don't think AI-philes will get much, AIphobes will get average with the end with Seth's plan for those who plan to not build their business with it average, cannot fully recommend. He does summarise his ideas in his next post, hmm.

Hmm. Time to revise positions again. Judging from my previous notes.

Considering Steve Klabnick has a similar to mine, with being wary'n technological puritan. Not a Tech opportunist. I'm simply not the industrial bottom line, not Disney, not Nintendo, not King who managed to lay off its employees.

Oh, It's still generative Ai, well that could be a marketing term right now. Now for the last notes.

. Jumping in bed with For-profit companies for content ID is not going to work, a nightmare system as it is. I'd wish they call it copyright infringement, but everything is loaded with RFAA terminology. It is even argued that it ain't the case, the push to make fair use and fair dealings obsolete to apparently control the diffusion models and LLMs. Trying to marketize style will only consolidate power.

Again, licensing tends to encourage monetize/marketerize-or-die kind of logic, which I'm trying to avoid.

. Environment is a loaded gun, none of the essayists or pundits than Alex Avile, fight me on that one. I'd have to limit my micro-blogging after this. Bluesky and Xshwitter aren't going to be deliberately misinformed licensing.

. Education and connections with controlling tech have been noted with Peter Thiel. Along with certain reaction streamers championing it (not all). They should not be taken seriously anyway, anybody who takes thou opportunist ambulance chasers are confirming Neil postman has said about Amusing ourselves to death.

12 minute video, apart from the thing, this is going to move towards a hyperreality. How it is malicious theory to control with aimless categorization and normalisation as the maths cannot be determined by those who preprogram it. I mean Alex Avile has already touched on educational programs who happen to use with the Khan Academy.

This is a question for future generations, and the ones that will come afterwords.

Merely shows how what's at stake here.

Maybe I'm drawing a close parallel to the postmodern villain that Video's Team wrote. Copyright will end with Disney wanting to license our thoughts.

Lets hope for copyright-gate by the sovereign citizen types

(Futurama with that the ad-creep on dreams)

I'm agreement back to Flippo

"Unpopular opinion: the pro-copyright anti-information freedom response to generative AI is reactionary, and it’s bad in all the usual ways reactionary things are bad.
The tech is here to stay. The only thing being decided as a matter of IP law is whether open models will be a thing, or if the big rights holders will get to make a lot of money by licensing proprietary models. As before, I prefer a world where information and tech are free and accessible.
Like, I understand "I don't want to be put out of a job" but I really don't get "I want the tool that puts me out of a job to cost $159.99/mo from Adobe who licenses it from Getty, so I can rest easy knowing it was not trained on anything I made". IP law can deliver the latter, not the former.
Right on cue. Perfectly legal licensed training data. For OpenAI, Midjourney, and Google. Not for open source models folks can hack on and run locally. (If the copyright maximalist doctrine prevails.) All the downside, none of the upside. Yay for copyright!"
He points to this link https://www.404media.co/tumblr-and-wordpress-to-sell-users-data-to-train-ai-tools/

So I pour it, the course and the discourse. I'll leave looking at the AI entertainment channels next time.

What do my characters think of Ai/Copyright?

Ai

Bopkin and Castella will endorse it, Bopkin an opportunity, Castella a means of confusion. Crump Marcy will look at the funny blur and get think it looks cool in a dizzy kind of way.

Bopkin will be in bed with that, wanting faster and Cheaper, like Doctor Robotinik. He'd probably shove it into a get-rich-scene and then fail
 
Rubarb and Muddel will be in the Dark.

CG encouraged by Bopkin, George by Marcy, Theo and Asheal will be curious simply because of the noise it creates by others. Couch Gregor will be pulled in different ways by Jaime and Bopkin.

Danny, Trist and Jaime will be to most rebelious of it, Kyro will consider it secretly, and abomination. Vera will say those filters ruin her complexion. Dutton and Sucker will object, Dutton Tradition, Sucker becuae it succccccccccccks.

Licensing politics

Bopkin will love to extend copyright to infinity minus a day, and copywright infringe report children who happen to draw that he can't sell into the marketerize. Castella will like the things like they are having. Vera will with the misconception. Dutton Traditionalist will follow with Theo. Rhubarb, CG and George will be pressured in to dubious licensing deals. One into a loophole.

Muddel don't think well, Asheal won't think about it, Marcy will attempt to do it in her accounting, and then it will not mind whichever flows.

Kyro wants to have no business for secretive reasons. Jaime want's it abolished for anarchism, Danny will go into peer pressure along with Sucker Sam. Trist will move towards a punk underground, not following any of that.

(As for myself, suspension. Another post )

Fanart, derivative grey zone. License reductionism Talk.

 No, we are below notice. As with the Seuss case.

I did Aggron within a neato butt.

This is why I'm https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ including my blog, including my ideas. Disney and Nintendo are too litigious. With there flexible permissions and the remixes of fan art of prospered. 

I'm reminded that our licensing laws, as there fullest are full of controversy and disagreements, here's one I agree with Jimmy. Copyright, an obsolete concept, or something that may be undone by capital.

Oh my, the entire copywriting profession, being completely hackneyed, each is a vote for copyright, or a vote for the legitimising of such a system.

One of the reasons why I self-publish.

I'll continue. What I've learned from licensing that people, like libertarians, have a market fundamentalism view of that only artistic energy can be placed within the desire of making money, oh how easily measures yet naive. Also, that's not art. Not even the conversion rate an executive makes, well, that of the work's exchange value is reductive in of itself.

Work schedules, crunch culture, sigma grind set, Criminalisation/decriminalisation of sex work/anti-work, sexcess, design theories and praxis, those are all the things a craftsman can discuss that don't need licence. Pro-bono and other charity projects are always there that can be done without permission.

Including the ontology of licence. Along with the witherist position. The licensing industry complex, yeash. Sustainability being a trained skill again.

( Oh btw, since capital is going to disintegrate licences due to jingling keys with it's David Foster wallace Infinite Jest that can be played on doomscroll is qualitatively different from establishing a community that prioritize mutualism and equitable, resource redistribution of the co-operatives will always be more beneficial. No from the reactionary populism this big companies have. )

Here's a 15 video by Shiddy kickflips with cussing, I need to document it here in case you missed it.

Next time! Couch Gregor will look within Comfy UI, the stuff coco was made from. 🛋🔎

Artfight platform Ruminations to license reductionism

Previously, Zei has retreated from art fight due to restrictions and, copyright apparently, or repetitive usage within boss fights. He had to remove it due to stresses now.

Oh, silly platforms, middlemen and the rent-seekers. Is this the case? What is this, is this the amount of ways that are made and that it's exposure again.

Exposure builds credibility (be it commercially), right? Or that's how it works through the public. This is the age within the Internet where there's infinity and free, what is there to license any more? Should we license? Paywall? Rhetorically, I answer here.

This was designed for one on one communications or small, viable audiences; the internet like a place like this.

Work means showing up on demand, in others terms and hitting specifications, a hobby is something one does to entertain oneself, like the YouTube poops. The hobby economy will still continue regardless, with new sites cropping up. Along with the shelf space like that.

Yet this is for the satisfaction of paying within one's own work forward, with minimal editing and interaction. That's supposed to be an art trade, some hours a day, drawing and done. Yet I can understand there are other commitments and bigger projects others could do.

Back to the struggle/share duality again, another choice to make. Can't argue with the free hugs guy, I'm a free hugs guy who does not give away licensed hugs.

(Going through the rationales)

It's non-profit and could be part of other education, so I'll give it that. The caterer gets front-page access, yet there's merely more braggability of doing other gift work somewhere else. Still that front-page space with a support to provide for the platform, the proprietary platform that I'm meant to entertain again.

Ergo Omnes

* Pretentious warning pretentious warning *

 Such is a law that's delivered for all. Is this what the Kantian, that's universal delivered internally, along with such a ontology of consciousness treatment of categorical imperative.

It's why that they copyright cases will make rule 34 and fan art impossible. I don't know why the fan artist want to lobby content I'd abuse that they will suffer from, have we not forgotten.

Wow, it's like any complexity on the internet is going to be skimmed over and if it's not simplified into a BuzzFeed article, it's going to be ignored.

Ronald Reagan said "If you're explaining your losing" I think he means being indirect with that type of argumentation along that line.

With all things with the implications of such a law, only a matter to adapt.

Still it's a snide thing,

Looking within licensing guffaw witin the knowledge economy 🛋🔎

Does nor exist, economists log off. There is the knowledge domain. What they ain't is a scarcity of knowledge. Such a scarcity with what is able to be searched today.

Such a dubious concept, along with the attempt of an intellectual monopoly and monopsony. As if thought can be controlled. Such a matter with idea's concepts and style that are too broad to be categorized with a thing.

This brings a division, on how these matters where tutors tell other artists to use reference, yet not when it comes to copyright, our that such a matter concerned with its own withering and the means to monetize.

These are the alternative laws with regard to displacement with others, with defendants can in regard to maximalism of licensing laws.

From Alix Aviles* second video.

Oh dear, looks like it's going to be a combination of AI and Copyright, yet with such licensing laws there's going to have to be a reimagining with them. Or circumnavigating them, as it merely will make fan iterations impossible.

Copying non-commercially was forever a practice within classical academics, I've done sight size method myself as a manner of teaching Copying were to mean to bring design patterns and their aesthetic axiologies into a new repeatably and consistency.
Copying will help transform and merge

A scientist goes does deep down of the ideology of libertarian, western thought - pro capitalist thought left behind via Ayn Rand. Well, I could draw a line down there, Adam does not know how that from Steven Jay Gould and to the moment of our technocracy of yearning for a sense of control, a matter that transcends copyright and the licensing laws of the ownership to our attention and the control of it with our attentional facilities

That reminds me when it's comes to AI within the idea of making our own ideas with controlling the conversation, aiming for the outsider.

1:34 hours (Yeah there was criticism where the sponsor previously, yet welcome to the machine of entertainment that we live in. )
*Anywhere, here's the vid

That's curious, that was a different definition of accelerationist, (Maybe he's using a different definition which I don't hold. The direct action plan sounds well, though. Also with something off-base with certain sources such as Mark Fischers miserablism.

It's all.. Mild and inoffensive, though, all things considered. Even with the direct action strategy.

Yet the legal battle, I can't really join in that circus.

(This one is on my to-read list, so many on the bucket list.)

Tom scott also did a video in regard to other work

Patricia also did a video in regard to understanding the licensing laws. It's not going to be easy.

Well, imagining other means such as a right to the city and other means of direct action is a anarchist methodology of accomplishing that's also suitable. Also, the handshake deal that is taken for granted. Such as a simplicity on that with a written agreement.

The copyright industry complex. Urgh. Why are so many willing to die on that hill?

Has our licensing laws every been pro-worker? Look at those perverse incentives.

As with the naturalistic reductionists with what happened with religion, so will there be a trend with our own licensing laws. What I also dislike about this reductionism that it reduces all aesthetic energy to how much will commodify it, the get-rich-and-famous contract. Something wiggling inside me is telling my that's not art.

So, to confirm.

LLM and Diffusion models are remixing tech that's mindless and iterative to our designs. Only through the deal that ain't contingent of NDA's and several escrow payments and paperwork, we could do work or anti-work that makes a difference.

Thoughts...

My editorial:

I tend to prioritize fraudulent behaviour than ontological perfection of IP/Copyright. John Lockian property rights are a liberal conception that can lead into petty sport of the printing press. (Even John Locke opposed monopoly, btw)

I don't like either the diffusion model training data and copyright. It's catnip to industrialists because they are about faster and cheaper product.

I'm currently doing more journalism within the legalese stuff, this gets quite

 editorial and even into political and economical matters.
Never underestimate the simple, direct transaction over complex.

Since property rights are easier to argue from an industrialist due to capital, it's only a matter of not playing their game. Only a different game and system that the independent not dependent of the commercial industry.

( Oh and if they decide to content ID this article on Goofy being incredibly hot, they erm I guess I told you so. Guess entertainment ain't an amorphous blob. )
Guess I'll have to preserve it here for great justice.

I guess this is a matter of taking a deep breath. Along with focusing on the main struggle. I guess that's enough of this hornets nest of da industry.

All rights reserved is an outdated licensing term btw. Bears repeating

Diffusion model ethics to Broad brush

I investigate into the lands of the beep boops.

Previously on Couch Gregor's ai editorals. Since I'm dissatisfied with all the editorials, I made my own.

Looking at the coco workflow, there's the usage of noding and shaders here like it's used within blender, with 3d models.

Huh, according to the questionable lawsuits there n has been ethical questions in regard to this, I've had to check what this will do for independents.

Looks like it will have to relax and into noding, with minimal text-to-prompt speech, I'm afraid such a matter will move towards no copyright infringement. The environmental concerns along with the labour is another matter.

I can still see some inconsistency here and there, i think it will.

The only answer to this will be to do another art piece.

Since copyright licensing laws aren't going to stop this ( Disney has been developing its out diffusion models for to replace to concept artists.. ) Such a matter that copyright infringement it out of existence, it's going move into ethical questions with regard to its use and not contingent on commercial publishing and industry.

Licensing politics! Yeesh. Have they slapped me with a copyright infringement from drawing an Aggron as a pin-up, perish the thought. I'm merely a content producer to them anyhow.

This book is on my audiobook list in terms of essays. So many coming out these days. Got the audiobook.

( Oh hint, my untested estimate is that I agree with 80% percent of the book, it's good at dealing with the transhumanist thought that's been erupting more within Silicon Valley and the saviour complex.)

 With the rise of deepfakes will continue to occur, along with the 

The age of scepticism is going to get more muddy. Herschel Gordon Lewis had a point with direct response rates

Disinformation campaign first, funding latter.

Going to have to boost this as such tech evolves, Fox Key did make a post that this will continue since films are the most labour-intensive and expensive forms that we take for granted. Including videogames, and such a licensing that will only move it underground, along with managing.

I'm not sure if we can out-license of with this will combine to some odd concoctions, I don't like this I.P loving people, (Even though I can imagine a system of resource redistribution not contingent on it, merely like how qualitative differences between a restaurant and a soup kitchen works. Does that make me a anarchist? Oh, well. )

It's not that the lowest common denominator word of content means the worst and the best. Bill Gates definition versus Martha McLuhan definition.

Welp, I'll have to keep track as these things unfold, and soul-searching will occur. This broad brush will see more erm, cases, so to speak. Both Industrialists and the silicon will be watched.

(Also it's copyright infringement, not theft, RFAA implanted that. )

Anti-art and anti-business/Questionable cases

 Previously on Couch Gregor's journalistic notes on Gen AI.

Clickbait! Clickbait and Grifts all around like we are in the trenches! It's time to hide and try to make sense of it.

This attempts to clear some of the fog, despite certain talking points being made.
This one is alright, even if it attempts to separate predictive AI for social media and including generative AI. It claims most of predictive AI on social media hit prediction is bunk and that alot of the scams there are where the snake oil is.

Yet it goes into why it uses text to speech long with other certain evolving tech for clarity.

3:10 hour of the most charitable understanding, along with certain questionable cases that are misrepresenting, I'm not acting as a proxy for Alex Avile.

This is the most accurate take, despite the postmodernism (which I don't like. Foucalt, grr ) Now, it does read between the lines on that Case while happening to not simplify something. It's simply not that simple with such cases like that. Oh, some ideas are not contingent on the measurement of currency.

It's becoming more apparent that with our desires, that even with the efficiency argument and the environmental concerns beginning to surface.

These are the ideas that may get me called out for being anti-business or anti-art, simple because I find a case that supports Adobe AI models and Disney's Ai Models, an indefensible inconsistency. It's why I've tried to listen to others, including the sceptics of the anti-ai. Why would you consider yourself a defender of a class with that backing?

Regardless of things, I try not to be too technological determinist about it, there will be capital and another day of work to do.

Do yourself a favour and don't read the comments, even if I did. Merely noting a Marchell Duchamp taking from Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven.

There are multiple sides to this AI debate and conflict, so I'm going to continue my essay archaeology.

Not into the postmodernism, can be ignored yet his copyright alliance ip-loving maximalism which seeks to increase displacement and artist erasure.

I'm not relating to the justifications of it all.

Yet that's not the intention of advertising, it's to repeat like a frequency till your "accountant tells you they're bored with it." Now it's more of hiding heads in the sands, and with the complexities unresolved.

Creative or 'creative' Pundits have been disappointing, to self-defeating cases, and towards to ineffective noise filters that don't work on current models, no glaze or bulls***. 

I'm going to have to leave this for more coherent words, not another quietism and heads in the sand. With the Luddites that have lost, we have to see if we can at least remain technically literate.

"watching artists advocate for stricter copyright law is insane, to me. you are wrong!

these kinds of people hijacked the whole deal. it sucks. its going to turn into "being anti-copyright law is pro-AI and anti-worker" lol"

I don't think these class interests have oversight to be representive, I'd like more critical thinking with our own ideas.

I have to agree with that sentiment, people have got there funds despite archaic laws, even though I know there are lawyers out there that are good people. We have to come to terms of it. I don't think that's it's defeatist, rather than reassessing my terms of assessment.

I may be called anti-art and anti-business, as things have been previously done. Yet, reading between the lines is something I have to do here. I don't want to live in a complete permission culture, there are always going to be conflicts.

If the confusion of permission and remix is still forever, then nothing will be accomplished.

Technically literate, the best kind. Can't wait for part 2 by Alex Avile.

(Post edit Avile proceeded to post ) Slopification has already happened when he pointed at Defen village. )

Here's my Comment.

"Thanks for this, my thoughts... Remember Elsa-Gate? There was already slop within the gaps to quote 'feed the algorithm/market', such a system of romantic individual creativity could be made, yet as such an extent of the sloppers, the masses don't care and YouTube. Almost like being in our own niche places, where the internet was designed without the intention of advertisers, the commodity fetishism of it all, there's still community to build. So is the idea of Neil Postman's amusing ourselves to death when it comes to politics, journalism, education and religion and made to be liked, aaah Dough Ruskoff, within his documentary to be liked. There was already hacknification and hierarchal relationships with the creation of our crafts. I do it myself when it came to it my own sex work. It's like everything is being illuminated, like you said. The fabric of our serviceability being natural in of itself, not so in our systems. 🛋💭"

It's not like I'm defending Elsa gate or that, it's merely how others don't pay attention to their out mechanisations provided with the financial incentives.

Such as it I don't think the Defen Village as the same as such as the other industry complex, we are seeing it more now.

(Oh, I have no intention of debating this maximalist positioning, regardless, supporting Disney/adobe copyright with their AI models is not within their interest, and not within my purview of debate. There is a growing preprosterism. The less the art enterprise looks like the free market enterprise separation from crunch culture and sigma grind sets the better. I guess some)

Let's leave these cases. Permission culture out of the aesthetics of ideas, concepts and style.

Crosswordism of epistemology: Susan Haack

Notes! 

Crosswordism, a conciliatory epistemological framework of viewing the world for out philosophy, of complete true justified belief. Yet here we are, some of here essays are good, some of them are not. Regarding Neurlanaysis and the overwriting of very within the language.

I gravitate towards Stephan Jay Gould and the mismeasure of man, along with Delusions of Gender as authority sources of Cordelia fine in regard to that. (I'll have to reread it.)

I wanna leave phrenology to the academics, I'm an artist/entertainer first.

Nobody's perfect with my wabi-sabism, So I take a bit from there, a bit from that. Now, such a visualisation of 3-dimensional epistemology is a way of reasons and clues being evidentiary experiences. Wow, she does like paradoxes, as do I within my fiction.

Well, that's ambiguity, that's a way to approach an essay or a fictional work.

Later she critiques the further industrialisation with academia and that's reflected or the orderisation and packaging of student into products that's a simple way with SAT tests, that later is the golden lining that brings with topics. Ad agencies lines of thinking that Seth Godin that has thought, or that he has to seek.

Attorneys being representation of advocacy rather than scientist being that of the pursuit of knowledge. Along with other distinctions, if you ignore thing, she provides a good framework for paradoxes and a 3-dimensional way of seeing discourse.

Trippy, man. Things for the philosophy are to be questioned, nothing is safe, from copyright and curious questions, a lot of questions, and then there's answers.

I'd recommend despite the odd bits.

Why I am a literary editor, not a commercial one.

 Since commercial speaks for itself, I aim for the long-risky term and along more complexity of an established foundherentism principle. Figuratively in it's totaly.

That's what literature and by definition is, most of the ludo logical tautology online simple is not. Literacy requires pretension to be comprehended from audience to author. Where hypocrisy with all the affecting that since entertainment writing is meant. Entertainment writing ain't as pretentious as academy, editorial, journalism, and politics.

Yet such a distinction is worth talking and reminding once and again. That's for the foolish fiction to be the philosophical fact, to editorialise and to fictionalise once again.

https://substack.com/@ayanartan/note/p-153820574

Since the net, everybody can copyright now (Including this link towards pretension! Wow) Yet with everything with hyper-measurement, it ain't that scruncabley simple.

Types of Puritanism not worth persuing.

 See what I did there? In terms of dogmatism, bull crud may hide behind pureness, too.

• Copyright industry complex
  
  
• Creationism in western spectacle
  
  
• Mass media advertising (copywriting knows)
  
  
• Young adult (genre) you may as well write smut at that point.
  
  
• Sunk costs
  
  
• Monoposy of hypersexualisation
  
  
• LGBTQ
  
  
• Opportunism paradox worship
  
  

Types of Opportunism not worth pursuing

An anarchist gave the definition of Puritan/opportunism in regard to which political organizing is worse. He went with the opportunism. (Badmouse was his name)

 Defeatism and the opportunism. Puritanism and the other alternative, That's another element.

Bull crud masquerading as Opportunism are the worst.

• Steam greenlight dogmatically spamming their belief of the number go up
  
  
• Rule 34 art (obvious, there was a discourse of how fan fiction. Will die on the
  hill that some fan fiction is better than commercial published.)
  
  
• Mass marketing campaigns for fundraisers and rogue freelancers, social
  media is social media, not hustle/spammer media
  
  
• Instrumental Role players who want to see their high SEO sexualised subject.
  
  
• NFT crypto
  
  
• Derivative Intelligence
  
  
• Copyright maximalists
  
  
• Multi-level marketers
  
  
• Certain New age market
  
  
• Inspiration porn

The A.I Gulf, and auto-posting software : Postbirb/Buffer

When you do research to do a journalistic piece. You go around all the Internet to editorialise into an essay, these are all notes. Incoherently placed, here we go.

Since others use auto-posting software, I've dabbled within postybirb, and the more dubious online app buffer. I discovered Buffer advertises itself with link shortening, so I'll be direct. ( No point hiding it, I don't think boycotting/blacklisting will work either. ) Toothpaste is out of tube.

It's dubious since it has an auto-durative intelligence, that I haven't used. That if you want my word, since I want to be a professional writer, the portmanteau between illustrator and writer is a cartoonist. Not going to be using the 

( Postybirb does not do this, by the way. Even though, a spell checker is always appreciated for typos. )

No, I don't endorse it, yet my vote ain't going to count, ain't it? It's been integrated within 'Grok' within xwitter, and that I've been. There's still a rough folk congregation, a Venn diagram of the forming groups under various labels and political sympathies. I have some for the open source with my gift, as long as I own it. Well, It's the time for the commons and public domain have been useful services to our society. My characters coming from pride and prejudice.

(Sometimes I anthropomorphize my ideological conflicts as characters for my entertainment, Regardless. Do I even Fictionalise myself into a entertainer to absolve any responsibility? I'm certainly against the maximisers and what Chuck Wendig has done.)
To sketch out the labels some further, This is what called positioning:

Ai Futurists - Open sourcers ()  Copyright Maximisers - Ai Haters
Lets show this concept some more.

Some people use sneer/scare quotes within open source.

Fair use is always going to be murky water. You don't own concepts, poses, or colour schemes.

The grifters are the tasteless Elsa gate churners targeting illiterate kids to game with the essentialising of money for their product. Perfectly designed, unlike the imperfection wabi-sabi of art.

Despite Seth Godins endorsements of tech, I'm a technologist when it comes to aiding within the creative labour industry and freelance sectors. It's still decimating as we speak. I'll keep track of him. His take on AI going through a Gartner hype-cycle is another thing. It's something I resonate with, since once again, This genie has been out of the bottle.

With indie publishing, even when small businesses themselves can be as bad as their commercial counterparts. Then with Stephanie Sterling and above with the many disputes of Fair use being a muddy term of creation.

The water-usage is overblown, I've donated directly to Ecosia, which I recommend switching your search engine too. Heard it's less than boiling a kettle, I've rebalanced by carbon with a donation that I'm planing to give or my own writing of fiction.

Filippo Valsorda

‪@filippo.abyssdomain.expert‬

There must be something about wasting water that really clicks with people, maybe because they can visualize it? It's kind of farcical, the WaPo story about this tried to make it sound like a lot of water and in the process admitted it's... not?

‪Filippo Valsorda‬ ‪@filippo.abyssdomain.expert‬

·

6mo

Holy f**k I missed that: TRAINING ALL OF GPT-3 consumes in total as much water as... producing beef for two people for a year. Not pro-rated to the usage of GPT-3 two people make in a year. Total. And we get a whole article about the water consumption of AI?! bsky.app/profile/ryan...

December 17, 2024 at 2:27 AM

1 repost

9 likes

Since the growing of the usage of AI, I've been following the blogging of various writers who's describing their thoughts. So I'll have to keep track of this. Oh, I will vote for the shadow libraries because it's a means to spread the idea. I shall defend to the death for a creative to sales rep for free and paid. The economy of gifting and hobby does not exist.

I'll resolve this with a video by Shaquille on this. 21 min for those who have missed it.

They'll certainly be a market for hand-made craft, with more and more of this silly technology play-do'd search matter will create more blacklist. I speculate that it's still going to resurface with new iterations. This regurgitation is tasteless. This lack of direct action from others is also tasteless.

I do believe good artists should get paid for the labour and activism, yet this will move towards my leanings, given with my own accord. Copyright maximalism ain't the answer. It's not like these untouchable technopolys deserve any PR anyway, including Nintendo.

(Oh, and the reason I keep using bug is a two-way posting. Reduce cognitive load.)

Do contact me though, I don't

Inktober/DrawTober Thoughts

Merely relaxing into the rhythm of doing work for me. Already did,

It's yet another trend where a stream of attention for people to pay attention to and to grow a following.

Everybody, what a stream of attention to grow a following towards solvency. I can afford to, with all the amount.

Even when the guy who stated cleared the copyright for the makers to sell their work, It's clear there's social capital involved to help capitalise on the streams of attention again. It's to show a little spot where the SEO lays, and that's it.

You are the product to advertisement product, and the attention economy is ontologically inseparable to the conversion advertisement these platforms support, with the prosumerism intertwined with its structure.

With the reporting on this, Mary Sue seems to do honest reporting. Oh boy, another copyright troll. Of course, into the antipathy brand which has mixed antipathy as a legal concept within legalese. I have mixed feelings of it being a useful fiction.

@KrossKritical

 Posted this meme in reply. Aaaah 🛋️💤

These short-term RFPs for internet traction will always exist, for the long termers who want to be sought out by name, they will always have to ignore it. I forget everybody is in the hunt for the newcomers, and it's target audience.

We are not 100% pure when it comes to these trends, either go in for the self, or the generosity of others. I'll most likely going back into the art-fights, due to the fun'n beauty. Yet self-sustainability is more important than from self-exploitation.

If I contradict myself, only if it's important.

It's a tactic, made to get hold of an audience's attention within these social media sites, it ain't for those who could afford strategy.