erin

That's what I was referring to from the loss of knowledge due to genocide. Unfortunately, we'll never know.

That may be the case, but they made significant progress on rockets, nuclear, and discoveries in physics. Whether or not they were war effective, the scientific progress was there. Fascism isn't incompatible with technological progress, but resistance to higher education and anti-science sentiments are. In the long run, the loss of knowledge due to book burning and genocide may have caught up to them, but we thankfully don't know. The government could have continued to fund and focus on science.

I don't know if I agree with this statement. If one of the main goals of the fascist state is technological superiority, they'll prioritize it. Nazi Germany was on the cutting edge of science, to the point that the US hired a bunch of their scientists. They made technology a priority at the expense of other sectors. Luckily, being incapable of trade or producing the resources they needed, they didn't outstrip the rest of the world, but the same likely can't be said for the US. I think other factors will get in the way of tech research in the US far more than fascism, like moronic trade wars and disincentives for higher education, which while being enacted by fascists, aren't necessarily fascist tenets, as proven by history.

Genuinely, I cannot tell what your point is. In some alternate universe, are we just rolling the rocks downhill? Don't you think we'd already be doing that? This seems like a great use case to replace diesel trucks with ones that recharge themselves using potential energy from ore. This absolutely is a galaxy brain moment, in that it's a very smart idea.

I missed the original comment and this discussion now makes no sense. Why would you edit the content of your comment when you don't care about the points or the outrage?

On the contrary, since growing my nails out my nails have been way more clean. There is an awkward period between no nails and long nails where stuff gets caught underneath, but once you grow them out (only two weeks or so), they're perfectly clean because there's just more space underneath and nowhere for gunk to get caught as the angle is wider.

(Classic guitar players have long nails)

If you think that this:

Replace "machine" with "film crew", "rerun" with "do another take", and "tweak the prompt" with "provide notes". If they're giving notes to a computer or a person doesn't really change the nature of their work, only the language they use to provide those notes.

is what a director does? You have no clue what you're talking about. They're far more involved in the creative process on every level than you understand.

Your question about who AI helps is a valid one. I agree that that's what's important about AI use. I use AI in my work, but not to replace human beings, but as a tool to make easy mock ups or test ideas. I find trying to replace human creativity in a way that replaces jobs or the human spark that makes art, art, abhorrent. AI art cannot exist without humans to train on, so humans cannot be fully replaced, but I hope to never see a day where AI takes the positions of well compensated artists leeching off the work of unpaid or underpaid humans.

I'm not suggesting that the director has full responsibility for the art. They are part of a team, and the creative style of a director heavily influences the finished product. You can tell who directed a movie just by watching it. There are very important creative decisions and directions that point the team of more specialized artists in the right direction.

This is not analogous to AI art. That would be like the director of a movie telling a team of interns to cut together clips of other movies as best they see fit, within a general outline of the script. A person using AI to generate art isn't part of the creative process in the same way; they tell a machine what to do, and decide whether to rerun or tweak the prompt after seeing the result. This takes some small modicum of creativity, but it isn't creating art. It's fine for fun, or to use as a stand in tool, or to mock-up designs, but it will never have the creative direction of a human being, or stand on the same level with true masters, regardless of how well it can copy their style. It can't understand the art.

Directing is an art form of its own. The cinematography, the pacing, the set design, acting, and so much more is all influenced by the director's decisions. It would be like saying a conductor or a music producer isn't an artist. Easy to say if you don't have an understanding of the art form, but dead wrong. There are a ton of creative choices at all levels made by directors, and there's a reason we've been using them in one way or another since we first started performance art. I've worked under and beside directors in the past, and I have only the utmost respect for what a good director can do for the art.

A bad director however... I might agree with you.

That certainly is an opinion

Yes. "Cis" is just a description, like "straight" or "white." Calling someone "cis" is not an insult, but some conservatives take it as such. The common phrase they echo is "I'm not cis, I'm normal." They're trying to denormalize trans people by making an inoffensive and common descriptor an insult. The same people sometimes have a problem with being called straight by queer people because they see themselves not as straight, but normal, and anything different is abnormal. In reality, "gay," "straight," "trans," and "cis" are no more abnormal descriptors than calling someone "black," "white," "American," or "tall." It's all just "othering" those they perceive as political opponents.

They're seismically isolated