petralithic

Augustus did this first, to legitimize his rule as both head of state and head of the faith. Before that it was two separate people.

It was not a continuously burning fire, sometimes it would go out and the Vestal virgin who was responsible at that time would be punished. The Zoroastrian flame is thought to be neverending but that's not verifiable of course.

Many Greeks used to call themselves Romioi well into the 20th century.

> I understand a lot of it was a top-down change driven by converted emperors like Constantine

No, it was actually driven from the bottom up, as many people converted due to the appeal of a universal savior regardless social class. Christianity however was just one of the many death cults around during that time (meaning they are concerned with offering salvation when you die) such as Mithras or Isis worship.

Constantine legalized it because it was already so popular, especially among the upper classes, that would've been strange to continue to pretend it doesn't exist. The story of his conversion where he saw a cross in the sky and painted the (chi rho, first two letters of Christ in Greek) symbol is likely untrue and just a form of state propaganda.

"In fact" is a turn of phrase, it does not literally mean "in factuality."

Languages are for humans, not for computers, who read binary anyway.

What made them bad, could you give more specifics? I don't quite understand what they did that was a mis-hire in your current description.

Some of these comments are interesting to read. Haven't we learned from Cambridge Analytica in 2018? Or the various other scandals over the past 20 years? I can understand normal people not caring but how people on HN still use Meta apps is beyond me.

Well, the trope of the starving artist exists for a reason. One does not need to be employed as a full time artist to create art, and thus art can come from anywhere, the value of economics is an entirely separate issue because no one should expect to be able to do a leisurely activity as an economically viable occupation indefinitely. Does it happen, yes of course, but it shouldn't be expected to always continue.

It's more that I reject your premise of "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." because there is no backing behind that statement except your opinion and so I provided counter examples, but I did not need to do so because your statement has no rationale itself and can thus not need to be heeded.

How is this different from an electronic music producer? They similarly arrange notes without having played them physically. So too with people generating an image as a rough draft then editing every part of it, which is mainly what I'm talking about, not someone who types in a prompt and accepts whatever comes out.

I haven't, although I'm sure there exists a way to do. The point is that if one were on HN and reading the threads on AI in 2021, they'll see dissent as being nothing new.

Yes, of course. You also see those flagged to just as this one has been now. Turns out people don't like word salad of any kind.

Thankfully this post has been flagged. HN generally seems to police itself well when it comes to flamebait articles like this.

It is a rhetorical device that nevertheless clearly explains the various thought groups of AI art. If one requires human creation rather than mere human intent to be art, then similarly they can't consider a banana taped to a wall as art, nor AI as art either. But if one considers the former but then discounts the latter, then that's a logical hypocrisy. I am of the group that considers both as art, because both require human intention.

The AI created it but you choosing to display it is the art, performance art specifically, not that the image itself is art (but again if someone looks at it and it moves them, the image itself could also be considered art); did Duchamp manufacture the urinal he turned into The Fountain? No, but then why do we still consider that art? By your logic, he wouldn't be an artist.

Not sure why you're talking about managers, that seems one step removed. Michaelangelo was commissioned by the Pope to create something, is the Pope the artist? But then let's say Michaelangelo then uses some machine or hires his subordinate to paint for him, who is the artist then?

> But I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

Actually that is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about AI beginners putting in some words into a text box, I'm talking about creatives who use workflow managers like ComfyUI to create exactly the output they envision in their minds. In this way, the AI generation is merely a tool to get out whatever is in their head via synthesized means rather than manual (literally, hand) means. For example, this is a list of node work flows, it's similar to game programming in that you have inputs and you want to transform them to certain outputs, and that transformation work is thoughtful by the human and is what I imbue the creative aspect to.

https://modal.com/blog/comfyui-custom-nodes

Just saying it doesn't make it so. I can post similar memes and say "haha that's you" while pointing at you and citing your lack of media literacy when you disagree, that doesn't mean it's a cogent argument. Maybe there is an argument in that meme, but you're not specifying it and therefore I will not take it as a serious comment.

They asked about general trends so it doesn't matter if it's the same people or not as long as the average sentiment has changed.

Have you read these articles by DHH, of Ruby on Rails and Basecamp fame? He's also based in the EU so it might be helpful to read.

https://world.hey.com/dhh/why-we-re-leaving-the-cloud-654b47...

https://world.hey.com/dhh/we-have-left-the-cloud-251760fb

https://world.hey.com/dhh/our-switch-to-kamal-is-complete-8e...

I think you're reading too much into my comment. It's not a put down, I'm genuinely asking because it seems many people still think anyone serious about AI just types prompts into Midjourney, but it's become a lot more complex than that, akin to electronic music production; producers haven't played every single note with a physical instrument their synths synthesize yet their arrangement of the notes is what makes them a producer, and so too with AI workflows such as those seen in ComfyUI. If one is not familiar then they might not understand where the field is today.

Regarding prompts, I never said a computer "understands" or is "emotional" about an image, I don't think anyone actually thinks that, on either side of the debate so not sure why you're bringing that up. By "compressed" I just meant in the information theory way, in that if you have a specific series of words, and a given temperature and other settings for a given model, it will deterministically produce the same image, hence the set of those attributes can be thought of as a compressed representation of that image. I made no claims about it thinking whatsoever.

> It can produce things it's never seen based on lots of things that it has seen.

Yes, just like humans, as I had said in my initial comment about the same old arguments being said since 2021 when Stable Diffusion came out. But again that's tiresome so let's not repeat that here too.

More like just presenting a meme isn't a real argument, so there's not really any point you're making to miss.

I see this meme often but it's true, there's lots of options, not just one society that you cannot leave. Lots of countries on earth that one can move to, as people immigrate already.

Who said we all? If you specifically don't want to live in a capitalist society, you don't have to, there are lots of homesteaders even in the US who live off the land, you can be like them. I'm not being sarcastic, it's an actual suggestion.

Maybe. Or maybe one just gets it, or they don't, for a particular piece.

Or perhaps your initial premise ("AI without real art as input is noise") is simply wrong. By "get it," I'm trying to understand why you'd believe such a premise, yes even after 33 comments, because there is no underlying rationale to it, or rather, you never state it in a direct manner.

Yes, if you don't want to participate in capitalism, you're free to live in the woods and homestead.

Yes I do. Hardware should be independent from software.

I have an idea, let's just use the other number we all have, perhaps the one for social benefits?

And that's my point. It was never about the philosophy, it was always about the economics. That's what frustrates me, why lie? If it's money you want then ask for it, don't make up some bullshit.