Why is this on c/Technology? Musk isn’t twitter and twitter isn’t tech news.

the phrase “opt-in consent” is sickening. if its not opt-in then, legally, it shouldn’t be consent at all. I hate that we have to clarify.

Why is this in c/Technology?

That’s exactly what I thought would work, but it doesn’t.

I’m using a regular off-the-shelf tape recorder, it doesnt have an electronic interface, I just press play and record manually.

I did use par2 and tar to generate redundancy, but I still need a way to locate it in the bytestream. Tar doesn’t seem to reliably mark the start or end of files :/

I tried that first! But tar complains if it can’t find the file header! So I still need to do some sort of packets. Unless you know some sort of workaround?

It’s a digital image of a painting!

(Six, if you fold the pages back.)

Hey, don’t claim to represent my opinion if you don’t understand my reasoning. I don’t think art is mystical or spiritual at all, not in the way you’re describing it. Art is absolutely about patterns, and I agree that those patterns are inevitably going to be learned by computers.

My objection is not to “AI Art” in general, but to the specific type of art which is brute-force trained to mimic existing art styles. When organic artists take inspiration, they reverse engineer the style and build it up from fundamentals like perspective and lighting. Stable Diffusion and other brute-force ML algorithms don’t yet know how to build those fundamentals. What they’re doing is more like art forgery than it is like art.

And even then, I don’t really take issue with forgery if it’s done in good faith. People sell replicas of famous paintings, and as long as they’re honest about it being a replica, that’s cool too. Ethically my objection is that AI artists typically “hide their prompts” and try to sell their forgeries as originals.

Go look up the existing arguments against AI, and write your rebuttal to those, and then debate people about it. More productive for everyone involved.