I believe the spirit of "doing nothing is good for the soul" in the context of the whole, is pointed more at the dissolution of the thought that you ought to be doing something productive.

I would credit you the question, can one ever "do nothing?" Sitting on a park bench is something. Listening to birds in the morning is something. Breathing is something. These things are good for the soul, they are not "productive" in a capitalistic sense and I think that is the point of the list.

I believe the intent discussed in the article is that the U.S. would choose to enter in reparations. The argument being, beyond ethics, that as climate change displaces more and more people the walled gardens of the U.S. will be be beset by humans seeking refuge as well as climate change (catastrophe, crisis, choose your version). Therefore the practical answer is to gird vulnerable nations to survive well on their own for the sheer fact that it's less work in the end. And account for potential serious action to curb their own emissions as reparations could/should be weighted for potential future emissions.

Your comment does speak to a chilling line of thought that crossed my mind as a dystopian alternative; where the U.S. would rather violently oppose change while the land dies and, those who can, fall back to closed shelters mimicking their nation's stance. I don't see how that is a preferable alternative to doing what we can to ensure fair survival for everyone. Surely engaging in war on a dying planet is more costly than providing aid with the justification of historic and future damages.

Check out Chaos Magick perhaps. The centerpiece is: what you believe in doesn't matter, belief itself is the power. It encourages changing your belief structures so it doesn't become rote dogma. Fun to play with at any rate; pray to Minerva, sink an offering for Cthulhu, get into established religion systems and then switch for another.

If that's the same criteria you use for looking for that someone, and you proceed with an open and courageous heart: it won't be a dream.

And I would say that we have general artistic conventions of depicting elements the previous commentor suggested: smell lines, meat in teeth, etc.. Their absence from the scene leads me to believe the commentor's interpretation is far from the artist's intentions.

That's kind of how the whole thing could/should fall apart. "Authority" gives a command and someone down the chain has to enact it, if that person or persons above the chain refused to act - there would be conflict, but hopefully the opportunity for realization that authority gave an objectionable command. The cynical take is that any number of enthusiastic appeasers would enact the command to engratiate themselves to the authority in the system, defeating the message of the refusal.

Unfortunately, much of American machismo includes stepping on others to get a better view, or to be viewed more prominently by favored authority. So to answer your question, there's probably a dishearteningly large pool of people who would jump at the tasks Trump would dictate.

It does say have to so I think you still can, but you don't need to sleep to have energy for your day. It's a magic pill with magic rules

Creepy and anatomically correct are sometimes at odds

For sure! Often I’ll come in with a visual idea already, or will iterate on some with the AI giving inspiration. If I have the idea strongly I’ll sketch out the composition and elements I know I want - sometimes on real tricky poses like fingers I’ll take a photo of myself doing them. Throw that into stable diffusion with img-2-img to generate images based on my sketch/photograph to something more full featured or something I hadn’t thought of but really like (you can also set how “dreamy” the AI should be, how much it should vary from the input material).

There’s a lot of detail I could get into but the “assistance” is fleshing out a composition -> I go in and correct anatomical mistakes or elements I want to change specifically -> run it through again if it needs it.

I hear you, when this stuff was blowing up I couldn’t shake that it was trained off artists’ work that they didn’t consent to having in the datasets. Sure it’s similar to how human artists work (for music and art the prevailing recommendations for me, or any artist, was to consume material relevant to your art. For visual art they really just wanted you to constantly keep your head open for shapes and form) but it felt closer to plagiarism than inspiration. Some generations can be very close to an individual style (especially if the model was trained specifically off that) but I found that generations that omitted an artist ended up creating something compelling but not tied to one artist specifically - still undoubtedly a conglomeration of the multitudes it was trained on (including photography). It’s muddy water for sure, and the angle of AI replacing workers in general is still relevant - but I also think it empowers people like me who have the visual ideas but can use the help making them fully fleshed out.

The crux, for me, feels like “when you can see whatever you want, what do you want to see?” A lot of our AI woes are reflections of questionable human behavior (racist chat models, AI for war, deepfakes and dishonesty).

How do you feel about it?

I appreciate that! I’ve been shying away from posting stuff on here, as I don’t really know how people take AI art on not explicitly AI communities. For a while I had my own judgements on how the models get trained so I would understand. But thank you!

Thank you! I had to look him up but I can see the resemblance with the shape and hair style

Like, technology is cool. Engineering is cool. Building better weapons to kill each other and strike enough fear to garner compliance has never solved the impetus for their creation: the fear that a human will kill you, so you attempt to kill them first.

It’d be tight if a “rising china” or “rising anyone” meant that we as a global society would benefit from new helpful tech that gave people more choice and autonomy to improve their lives and the ones around them.