awmwrites

I filmed a lake with dark clouds over it a couple weeks ago for a video outro, set my phone up at the edge of a dock, held onto it the entire time. Could not stop thinking about how screwed I'd be if I had a hand spasm, or if there was a gust of heavy wind, or if the dock suddenly shook and my phone dropped into the lake.

The person who wrote that fancies themselves someone who can manipulate circumstances to their favor through means other than action, such as through social manipulation or persuasion, not realizing that sometimes conditions require changing hearts and minds and sometimes conditions require putting your body on the line.

I know, you should stop using Google

AI doesn't understand anything, it's just producing a linguistically coherent answer that may or may not be right. Stop looking to LLMs for answers if you care about whether those answers are correct or not

Reading anything without the help of AI will help you become a better writer because you'll learn new ways of using words and sentences and syntax in a way that people write naturally. It seems weird to focus on Marxism, but if that's what gets you reading, go for it.

Libertarian used to be a polite word for anarchist, it was a contrast to authoritarian. Libertarian socialists still see themselves as part of a historical tradition as an alternative to authoritarian socialists, though that's more European than American. Then there was a political project of European and American conservatives to redefine libertarians to mean conservatives who believed in strong property rights and a weak state.

Anarchism is a broad ideology against authority. Anarchists are against private property rights because if there is private property, there must be an authority to enforce those rights. Instead, anarchists point to pre-civilization methods of carving out individual spaces from the commons so that people can live without having to "make a living."

There's been a massive propaganda push by governments and state powers to define anarchist as "bomb-thrower," or to try and make anarchist ideas seem ridiculous, but anarchists are extremely invested in people recognizing themselves as moral agents invested in communal good while maintaining individuality. if you're interested in anarchist ideas, try reading non-fiction like David Graeber, or fiction like Ursula K LeGuin, or speeches by Emma Goldman. Don't let people on social media's knee-jerk reaction against anarchism turn you off. Even if you end up not being an anarchist, you can at least engage with the ideas and maybe find some stuff that resonates with you.

If they're still alive and still benefitting from said art and still harming people, no. Any time, money, or attention you give to them enables them to hurt other people.

A couple years ago I saw a band I really liked live. They were really important to me because their music helped me get through the collapse of one of my past relationships. Then it came out that the singer had hurt multiple people in multiple cities on their tour. So now if I stream their music, or buy their merch, or even just listen to their music alone, it'll be materially supporting a person's ability to hurt other people.

It's much easier to separate art from people who are no longer around to hurt other people. I don't feel bad for appreciating Guernica or reading Infinite Jest because doing so doesn't support the artists behind them causing harm.

Going back through the game on my all bosses run and finding Ebriatas and Maria for the first time. Ebriatas isn't the most fun fight, but her design is just so perfect. And learning the Maria fight is just so rewarding, like fighting Gehrman again but even tighter.

Ocarina of Time is my GOAT. Finishing it as a kid and realizing that games could be more than just killing time, that they could be epic journeys with satisfying endings, that they could be a whole art form was really transformative.

I saw someone in advertising a few days ago saying that using AI generated images in their ads kills their sales with gen Z. Gen Z can spot errors in shadows, inconsistencies in textures, small tells that boomers and gen X largely can't. As a millennial, I can spot a lot of AI, though every so often something slips through. But when I see a youtube channel with an AI generated image, or a business with an AI generated advertisement, or a game on steam with AI generated thumbnails, I click the three dots and ignore.

I think most advertising companies are going to find that the more Gen Z and millennial customers they have, the less they're going to want to use generated images.

It's good you're being cautious about it but it would be better to not use it at all. A recent Scientific American article showed that AI autofill suggestions change how people think about a subject just through suggestion, even if they don't use the autofill. And people who use it are often unaware of their own knowledge gaps, so self-reporting about effectiveness is useless. Using it even a little bit is probably putting metaphorical micro-plastics in your brain.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-autocomplete-doesnt-just-change-how-you-write-it-changes-how-you-think/ https://www.404media.co/microsoft-study-finds-ai-makes-human-cognition-atrophied-and-unprepared-3/

Protect your brain