Again, you’ve written quite a long comment, almost none of which is pertinent.

Music is not math. Some aspects of it can be expressed mathematically, yes, but that’s not the same thing.

Imagining the idea ‘I’d like to see an image of a lemming’, which is what you’ve done, does require some imagination. However, the output is not art because the process used to go from your ‘prompt’ to the image was not a creative one. (Also, this isn’t entirely pertinent, but the image output is really bad. If it had been made by a person and otherwise looked like this, I would still say that it was just ugly, bad art.)

You may well be a creative and imaginative person; I don’t know you and I wouldn’t want to judge! However, your image of a lemming was not the result of a creative process and so is not art.

Current AI is lacking both.

Only word wrong here is ‘current’. AI will never have creativity or craftmanship. It’s impossible.

You’re lazy and talentless, and you like how it allows you to steal the hard work and talent of others.

That some, most or all art is partly or wholly derivative of other art is not relevant because the process used by ‘AI’ does not resemble the artistic process. When Shakespeare wrote Hamlet (a work derived from an older play, itself derived from an older myth which itself had been through countless retellings, variations and translations), he did not do what an LLM does, which is approximately to say: ‘It’s statistically likely that the phrase “to be” will be followed by the phrase “or not to be”’. Putting together statistical likelihoods is not creativity. This alone shows that AI ‘art’ is not creative and therefore not art at all.

Additionally, instructing a machine to make things from prompts does not require creativity. Creativity is not ‘having ideas’; it’s an ongoing process. When you tell an image generator to make an image, you’re not asking it to create something, because it cannot do it. You’re saying ‘Show me the statistically likely output for this input’. Again, this statistical generator is not the same as, nor is it comparable to, the human imaginative process.

Yes. It can only exist through stealing the creative work of others.

Also, it looks terrible.

Yes, very useful for subtle distinctions like this!

Yes, it’s metonymy, as people have said. You also get it in similar contexts where people will name a building such as ‘the White House’ or ‘[10] Downing Street’ to refer to the governments of the US or the UK.

It’s not surprising that he’s not been able to exploit people’s empathy given that he has literally argued that empathy has gone too far.

Doesn’t matter as long as they’re exactly as knowledgable as I am or, failing that, slightly less so /s

Some sort of libertarian socialism, basically. Markets with co-ops and a strong welfare system provided principally by highly democratic local governments.

Any MBA?

Each to their own! I feel like you’re describing what the show wanted to be quite accurately, but for me it didn’t manifest much on screen.

Granted my memories may be a bit on the negative side because I’ve been doing this rewatch order and the last episode I watched just so happens to be ‘These Are the Voyages’ which, uh, yeah.

You didn’t miss much. A confused and confusing mess.

‘We’ve had air date order, yes. What about stardate order?’

You mean Enterprise.

I have this whole system where I alternate between poetry/non-fiction/fiction and contemporary/classic, so I always have about fifty books on my shelf and there’s always an obvious next one to read. Like right now I’m reading some classic prose fiction so my next read is contemporary poetry.

His politics were idiosyncratic. His beliefs in aristocracy would fit in well with the antidemocratic side of MAGA thought. However he also greatly valued art and, of course, philisophy, so I think he’d be turned off by the philistinism of MAGA.

Overall, he was probably too independent minded to slot in with the cultishness of it all, but I think he’d be MAGA-sympathetic and certainly more critical of the Democrats than of the Republicans.

Nuclear fusion, right? That’s got to be the big one.

He’s great, the two tries he was involved in were magic.

That match both gave England a mathematical chance of winning and showed we have no actual chance of winning.