Digital painting was a skill to learn on my bucket list. Emphasis on "was". Within the last 6 months all of that has changed. I no longer value digital painting as a skill.
It's easy to see why based on everything's that happened in the news. I'm sure a lot of people share my sentiment.
The sentence is just a factual statement. 3 agencies have done it. That is fact.
The sentence did mention china has done it on the first attempt which is also factual and relevant to context. The article is about moon landings and associated failures.
As for the Apollo program everyone knows about it. There's no point in regurgitating obvious facts.
>That's not denying some objective truth, because "specialness" isn't an objective thing that can be measured. It's, effectively, an opinion.
Well then let's talk about what I mean by "special".
If I gave you some art whether it's written, drawn or filmed and I asked you to tell me whether this "art" was created by a human and an AI, and you have trouble identifying the difference... then objectively speaking humans are no longer special. That is the definition I am using here.
There's no point in making up "opinions" and discussing those because they will always be different. Thus when communicating we are always talking about a shared reality. That includes the "term" special. I have defined what I mean by "special" here concretely so we can keep the conversation consistent rather then diverge onto branches according to our own personal definitions of "special".
>Humans don't have to be special in some grand sense to consider that problematic.
I never said it wasn't problematic. I said it was truth. The truth is the problem. Being honest and aware of reality is the intrinsic problem here. Being delusional is the cure.
But here's the problem. This saying: "Humans are not special" is completely true. To deny this idea is to deny the truth.
Ultimately to save ourselves, our culture must engage in self deception. We must trick ourselves into believing that AI content is inferior and thereby maintain economic demand for content not created by AI. I can see it happening as a mass hysteria similar to how the public was resistant against "new coke" (https://www.damninteresting.com/the-american-gustation-crisi...)
You will see that many people, including people on HN, are already doing this. There's a large cohort of people generating huge adamant denial on the potential of AI.
The OP is sort of being a bit too honest with himself, most people who flat out refuse to acknowledge AI will do so with the idea that AI is inferior and will always be that way.
Brain facilities that were previously evolved to gain a darwinian competitive edge through strategic intelligence can now be utilized to break the mold of natural selection.
There was no direct selection pressure that coordinated the development of your ability to understand evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology is a side effect of intelligence. Breaking past our darwinian purpose is a side effect of our meta understanding of evolutionary biology and intelligence. As someone else said we, to a limited extend, can make our own purpose.
My purpose is to sit while AI takes care of everything and keeps me happy. I want to live in the matrix where I have 30 hot model wives and not know any better. The simulation of course will make me a chad and emperor of the world. That's my purpose.
So if humans aren't special at anything, then humans don't really have a purpose. I envision a future similar to the one in Wall-E and it's not exactly bad so long as the AI actually acts in our interest.
>You’re saying people are weak and can’t enable change if they chose to behave a certain way and instead we need more governance and powers above us
Yes, I am saying people in aggregate are fundamentally weak. Certain individuals can overcome weaknesses but in aggregate we can't.
>I fundamentally don’t agree. It’s simple: prioritize dignity in yourself and the world will give it
Then you fundamentally don't agree with reality. Tell that dignity thing to a drug addict. Tell him to Prioritize his dignity and stop doing heroin. End the drug problem because people are strong. A few people will listen. In aggregate, nothing changes.
>I don’t accept interviews where i’m required to dance. My career has only gotten better since I made that choice.
On one hand you have control. On the other hand maybe you don't dance because you can't dance. There are people where "dancing" is equivalent to donating a dime to charity. A Trivial effort. To them the interview process is the equivalent of giving a dime in return for half a million dollars. Why the hell not?
>Even on the individual level you can make this right. It just takes effort.
The individual level is the only place where someone can refuse to "dance." For the industry to change it has to happen in aggregate. The aggregate change is impossible. There will always be people willing to dance, and there will always be people where "dancing" is a zero effort hand wave.
Just look at it and use your logic. It's simply very basic geometry combined with a specific font. That's it. There's decorative stuff like the curved spine but the layout is very simple. The buttons are rectangular there's nothing super complex here that is very far from a basic flat design. I would say lcars is a precursor to flat design.
Don't let your thinking be flat where you can only come to conclusions that are data driven. Use your intuition and project the creative consequences yourself. LCARS is owned by paramount so it can't really be used as a UI theme anywhere else without permission.
But what if it could? Just imagine it, it's not that hard. Hacker news can be themed into lcars with largely zero change to the XY location of every element. Picture it with your minds eye.
edit: I ended up finding an example: https://www.thelcars.com/menu/. But everyone should be able to come to the same conclusion without data. It's so trivial that illegal fan made examples do exist.