More like Jesus became a big problem for people with power and was made to suffer for it. Bonhoeffer was not saying that we should conceal our suffering in a way that it isn’t a problem for others. This was is in a larger essay about how people cope with Nazism at the time, very clear-headed but was calling out those who did little because they didn’t want to suffer and how we judged harshly those who lost everything.
I prefer Bonhoeffer’s take: we should judge people less by what they have or do and more by what they are made to suffer.
Most people on the internet are competing for who is the most contrarian.
I’m going to call a spade a spade.
In the same spirit, Americans are more interested in telling themselves they are right than recognizing what is good.
If you don’t like the competition then don’t participate in said competition. Other people don’t agree with you that it is an arbitrary rule and that’s okay.
So you would say a godot competition is silly because it restricts developers from using other game engines? Now you’re just being silly.
Some people provide translated subtitles and the app does have a built in translator function. I found it’s enough to converse, but definitely niche.
I haven’t been banned yet, but then again I save all my shitposts for the fediverse and stick to book reviews on RedNote.
The rules being “idiotic” is a different issue from whether using pre-existing assets as placeholders is okay. For instance, one could argue that genAI, even during the concept phase, is an unfair advantage like taking steroids for a sports competition. For the purpose of fairness they have a blanket ban on genAI, not simply because “AI bad”.
Like I said, when talking about morality you’re talking about a subjective perception of value. All the other issues I mentioned, like them not following the rules, have objective criteria to say “yes they broke the rules”. If your perception of authenticity includes gathering inspiration not from the originator but from a tool that samples art for you, then you would obviously conclude the end result is authentic. If however you define authenticity as something uniquely in the domain of the living, then they would not agree with you.
I would say that this is conflating different issues. The original issue is whether or not the entry followed the stated rules, they did not. Then you brought up whether using any tool at all is cheating or plagiarizing, obviously it is not. Now we are on a 3rd issue which is whether using genAI for placeholders is actually creative, obviously it is not because it isn’t part of the final creative product. And a 4th issue as to whether using AI is a “sin” or not, that is less obvious not because it depends on one’s moral framework and their values. For instance, if one values authenticity then they would likely agree using AI as part of the process makes a less authentic product, while someone who values profit or time more than authenticity would not see an issue with its use.
Most humans can learn on the fly though. If they see people taking turns at a broken stoplight they’re likely to follow that example.
It makes stonks go up
Yeah, that’s exactly what I am saying 🙄
Did genAI help you write this response? Because that would explain not understanding the difference between using tools to be creative and using tools to plagiarize.
You won today’s most contrarian person award. The prize is food served by someone who hasn’t washed their hands because they want you to have a strong immune system. To claim your reward please cross the nearest freeway on foot.
Did I stutter? Aiding in the production is aiding in the competition.
If we’re following the chess analogy the developers are allowed to use AI to train their skill but not to aide in the actual competition.
If we’re following the chess analogy the developers are allowed to use AI to train their skill but not to aide in the actual competition.
Oh I didn’t mean that I am a contrarian, obviously we are the exception 😉