Do you mean back when he played a caricature of a conservative "talking head"?

That doesn't really sound like ADHD to me, but rather low self-esteem. I am sure the ADHD could be contributing to the low self-esteem but it doesn't sound like the same thing.

I think the "11 year old killed" part is the one that should make you feel bad.

The influencer part is pretty irrelevant to the overall issue here, even if it might be relevant to other aspects of the story.

If all children of American politicians were legally required to attend public schools and integrate into common classes I think we’d see sweeping implementation of gun laws real quick. Might also force them to improve the quality of public schools.

Presumably because mania is a key part of the cult, and many portrayals in media use the behavioural signs of mania to convey evil.

Although I'm sure plenty of people might look a little manic if they were pictured while handed a lot of money with a big debacle made out of it.

The article says that they hope to regrow teeth for people who have lost their teeth to cavities, and the initial test is being done on adults who have lost back teeth. So pretty much the exact target audience you say it wouldn't target.

The meme is making fun of ICE agents for apparently being such cowards that they are afraid of an unarmed woman, seeing her as a threat on the level of Darth Vader.

It's emasculating them.

I don't think most of Europeans are particularly afraid of being in missile range of anyone but the US, right now.

And the only country that doesn't really fit in with the EU in terms of overall values at all is Turkey, so not a lot of crazy neighbours around overall.

And, to be honest, if the US had a modern public transport system you could probably visit anywhere worth going in a couple of weeks too.

On the Hobbit movies, I don't even think studio meddling was the biggest issue.

Peter Jackson had so much time to prepare for the original trilogy, where as he took over the Hobbit movies quite soon before they were scheduled to shoot and he couldn't use the preparation the previous director had done.

So he had no time to prepare and basically had to wing it with 3 movies and little to no prep.

Reading the article I don't see any support for your argument. It just seems like a arsenal strawman.

The article talks about getting more young people into political positions, and about having politicians generally stay in office until they die of old age is causing political stagnation.

It's not like it argues you can't serve past a certain age, just that it shouldn't be an exclusive old-people's club.

Man, the disrespect. His wife is right next to him, and even picked her sexy Halloween outfit just for him.

Yes

I didn't really follow the online conversations around the movie, but I did watch it and it's not entirely that long ago since I watched the animated movie either. If I was to try to judge the movie without the context of the orighinal, I'd say it was fine, nothing about it was terrible but I also didn't find anything about it particularly good or memorable. I think Will Smith did a fine job and I don't think he'd be anywhere near the top of the list of what I would criticise about the movie in that case.

But I do think context matters, and in context I think it comes out looking pretty poor. Genie as written for the live action movie pales in comparison to the animated one. In terms of craft I think the live action one feels like a soulless board-room directed husk, and I really miss the feeling of a creative voice in the whole thing.

If you're going to remake something, I it should be better, or enough of a reinterpretation to be considered distinctly different.

I am glad others liked it, but if I someone asked me which they should watch I would tell them the original animated movie because I think it is a better piece of entertainment, and that makes the modern one feel like an absolute waste of time, money, skills and effort that could have been spent so much better.

AI art is antithetical to art. Art requires artistic intent.

It could have some limited application for very early exploration in commercial art, or perhaps as very limited tools used in existing art software, but generative art is inherently pointless and you need artists to be able to do incremental iterations properly, which is required for real work, which isn't supported yet. I'll sure it'll get better and more convincing, but it's still inherently pointless to use AI for art, since the is supposed to be human expression.

I think the lack of distinctive features is inherent to how AI training works. From my knowledge you feed them data and it looks for the averages across those data. So if you feed it 100 images of people it will take note of the features that are shared. For example let's say 60% of the images you feed it for reference happen to feature a beauty mark by the mouth. The algorithm makes notes of that and when it produces an image of it's own it will likely feature a beauty mark by the mouth. Now apply the same logic to all other visual features and you might start to see why AI produces very samey-visuals: it's presenting the averages of the inputs it is fed. Better training materials will probably help, and I'm sure it can be tweaked, but "bland" really seems to be baked in to the formula.

My basic view of India is of a super diverse country with a fascinating history and cultures, and really great food. Politically I see a country that unfortunately is leaning in a more authoritarian direction as time goes one, and one that is getting increasingly unequal to its inhabitants. I really think India has so much potential but little will to actually improve.

The issue isn't ego from any artists I've talked to. The issue is that most enjoy DOING their art for a living, and AI threatening their ability to make a living doing the thing they love, by actively taking their work and emulating it.

Add to that, that no one seems to believe AI does a better job than a trained artist, and it also threatens to lower the quality bar at the top end.

Personally I think that if AI is free to use and any work done by AI cannot be covered by copyright (due to being trained on people's art against their will), then I don't have an issue with it.

I think you're just not catching it, which is perfectly fine.

Memes are simplified and therefore you can put more (or less) into them than the creator intended, so there's always multiple ways to interpret them.

My interpretation is this: If a perfectly regular, unarmed woman is that dangerous to them, then that makes them absolute cowards, and completely worthless at their supposed jobs. It also shatters any narrative about them being tough in any way, which I do believe is how they perceive themselves.

If you can't live off of doing something, you cannot dedicate very much time to it and not everyone will have a fulfilling life doing what they want on only a hobby basis.

It is not to the benefit of everyone, if most people in that sector lose their jobs they've spent all their working life striving to master. Artist still do commissioned work today.

If there is only only going to be a small niche of people able to do it, it will displaced all the rest of the people currently working in that industry. In which case AI is literally stopping people from doing art for a living, if they can get paid to do it.

People who followed their idea for a fulfilling life

I don't know about you, but I want AI to do the tasks in my life that prevents me from living a fulfilling life. I don't want it to do the things that I would have made my life fulfilling for me.

I think we might be coming at this from a different angle. You seem to think only about whether art will survive, whereas I'm thinking of the artists.

I strongly disagree. 99% of the work is being done by an algorithm. It's like if we had autonomous driving and you said you were actively driving all day, because you told the car where to go, and then took a nap in the car until you had arrived.