When I worked for an IBM helpdesk looking after point-of-sale systems, we used to ask them to check if the power cable had a black or a blue bit of plastic surrounding the pins.
"It's black? Okay, it's not that then, I was hoping it would be easy. Right, plug it back in again and... oh it's working now? Cool, ring me back if there's anything else then!"
Once thing I've noticed whe dealing with support cases in a variety of industry is, while there are different types of customer needs/comlaints (ex. a customer who is afraid of losing their warranty service via chicanery versus a customer who is dissatisfied with the results of the warranty service) customers sometimes really need to first feel like they are being heard.
Sometimes the emotional response of a person is literally "Can i speak to your manager?". It comes off rude, and it sure and shit is rude, but maybe they need to feel acknowledged, like maybe someone farther down the line was a jerk to them and they just feel blown off, or could just be a bad day. You sometimes do indeed need to perform emotional labor in order to achieve the best customer service.
I like this approach because it acknowledges the customer intrinsically and they feel like the maze has ended. The process has now become pro-active: There is light at the end of the tunnel.
The camera did not kill painting. There are tons and tons of painters still, lots of them use digital means like a tablet these days but it still absolutely exists.
Painting (portraits for example) as a profession largely disappeared, while art based on painting evolved (impressionism, cubism, etc) due to the camera.
My point is that photography is essentially a simulacra of reality, yet it unexpectedly created its own art form and influenced existing ones. So will the use of LLMs for generation
LLMs will not do what the camera did. LLMs have no anchor to reality like the camera, they simply optimize for the average. A camera is a whole new medium, an LLM is a statistical construction. Sorry to burst your AI bubble. LLMs will not be the new camera, they won't be a new programming language, and they won't be the new compiler.
I am not sure I agree, a camera on the surface of things is the most boring machine. It shows you what was already there. It is still can be the basis of several interesting art forms
I don't see why this can't happen with AI, or at least I am not certain like you it can't happen
It might turn out that there are more portrait artists, brush in hand, working today than at any point in history, in real numbers.
This is certainly true for riding horses, and most definitly for musicians.
But as the sole sources of those services, that is no longer true, or as percentages of total's, but with 9 billion people, the internet, and a big of effort, almost anything is viable.
I generally agree because the population grew, and music can be put aside has it never went through such a technological revolution (synth never really caught on)
But from what I saw there are less living horses today than 200 years ago, and although that just a proxy for horse riders I believe the same applies for painters, especially non-hobbyists
Arguably, the camera evolved painting because it expanded the idea of what it
could be – that it could be more than the illustration of/"illusion" of reality.
I think and have always thought the exact same thing will happen with generative AI.
Correspondingly AI expanding the idea of what it means to think and therefore what it means to be human.
By extension then also what it means to interact with other humans as we become more used to interacting with AIs, our interactions with each other will change.
Along with these improvements, depending on which side of the fence you stand, the releasing of humans to focus on consumption while AI produce the triggers for our consumption, i.e., the advertising.
AI is moving into far more spaces of human activity than the camera ever did. But that could also be because painting wasn't such a broadly practiced activity as thinking seems to be.
Yes, which was the point I was trying to convey. However it did also kill the profession of painters (the craft in art vs craft). Which might unfortunately happen to the more commercial side of music
Photography had particularly dramatic effects on the livelihoods of painters who operated on the fringe of the mainstream. This included the portrait miniaturists, whose markets fell drastically, particularly after the introduction of the multi-pose and cheap cartes de visite in the mid-1850s. Many gave up, while others turned to colouring photos [25]. Some painters of sentimental genre scenes were also particularly affected, as a result of the profusion of readily available photographic genre works, often composed in a painterly or "pictorial" style [26]. This was sometimes due not to the public’s preference for the photographic version, but simply because a particular subject matter lost its appeal to painters and their clients once photography entered the scene [27]. In addition, the introduction of “half-tone” photography in the 1880s also initiated a slow decline in the market for newspaper and magazine illustrators [28].
Nice wall of text, which part of that says painters jobs were killed?
Or did you just read the title of the second article and not realize it’s not being literal but capturing the anxiety of the painters in the 19th century?
I think the first article which is highly recommended (where the excerpt comes from) goes over subsequent effects on the profession. The second one goes over the different genres that disappeared, and concerns less with the artists themselves
Apart from that our interaction seem overly emotional for me so I'd leave it as that
It killed realist art and it greatly reduced the "market" of available paintings, which back then was really a market, art was usually commissioned for the same reasons you take a photograph today
You could have just said "no" or maybe admitted that "killing" painting was overblown, or maybe that it was not an accurate descriptor at all if you're argument is that it just "changed" painting.
I don't do semantics arguments because they don't help anyone learn anything
It largely killed an industry which was everywhere, sure there are still paintings and it's a primer art form. The number of paintings commissioned and number of painters fell drastically since the 19th century to the point I am willing to guess you have never had your portrait taken, something that was common place in the equivalent pay grades of today tech workers. Regarding the art form it is also arguably less important in people's life then it used to be (while museums still exist), However most music today is still mostly a profession rather than pure art for the sake of art
We can continue discussing whether the word kill is a metaphor or must be used only for a zero or one situation but I don't think that's interesting enough compared to the actual topic
His criticism of the Western political system was always way too simplicist and why it has immense appeal to college students.
Essentially it can be summed as any Western action must be rationalized as evil, and any anti-west action is therefore good. This is also in line with Christian dualism so the cultural building blocks are already in place.
Then you get Khmer Rouge, Putin, Hezbollah, Iran apologetism or downright support
I doubt you can find any essay or such where he said anti-Western action was good on the sole grounds that it was anti-Western.
It's difficult to summarise so many years of writing in a few sentences but from my own reading, he pointed out
a) many things done by the US lead to death or destruction
b) many of these things are justified in the name of good that doesn't stand up to scrutiny
c) the US government is often hypocritical
d) US citizens are heavily propagandized both for foreign policy and domestic policy
e) as a US citizen, it his duty to try and oppose these actions and since he's not a citizen of Iran, he isn't in a position to do anything about Iran
f) a) through d) explain why he is often seen as an apologist, to use your word, for Iran; he tries to explain, from his point of view, why Iran etc. do the things they do
g) a strong support of freedom of speech and opposition to censorship, including what he regards as private censorship as opposed to merely government censorship.
That doesn't explain why he visited Hezbollah and showed overwhelming support, probably aware of the organization roots and past actions such as kidnapping journalists or killing politicians or its self professed goal of creating a theocracy in Lebanon.
He of course has very complex rationalizing but essentially he assumes the opposite of mainstream western opinion and then tries to build ideological structures upon that.
That creates a very simplified version of reality wrapped in a nice intellectual wrapping
Chomsky had been involved in linguistics and politics since the 60s, which is nearly six decades covering a multitude of events and issues. To simplify his work down to even a paragraph is an impossible task, let alone as you have done as simply saying "anti Western".
For example, during the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, Germany and France were opposed to the invasion, leading to "Freedom Fries" to insult French opposition to the war. The British public was also opposed to the war, although the the Blair government went along with it anyway. Australia had a similar position - public opposition but government went along with it anyway. Canada official refused entry into the Iraq war. Chomsky was also opposed to the Iraq war. Does this mean that France, Germany, Canada and the British and Australian general public are "anti-Western"? Since Chomsky agreed with these countries, does that make him anti-Western or pro-Western? Does it make the US anti-Western since they proceeded with a war despite formal or popular opposition in many Western countries?
I fear you have a certain definition of the "Western" that simply excludes Western opinions that don't fit your understanding.
As to who Chomsky met him; well as part of this Epstein story, Chomsky met with former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak. In your opinion, does this make him anti-Western?
Indeed, prior to his stroke Chomsky explained that this kind of meeting is why Chomsky associated with Epstein - for the contacts.
I suspect Chomsky is just generally interested in understanding an issues and not bothered by what it's seen as, seemingly to his detriment in this Epstein story.
I am not a fan of Chomsky - the opposite in fact. I was deliberately avoiding judging his actual arguments - to make the point that his own morality undermines his lecturing others on their moral failings.
probably less, your examples are related to weapons and an arms industry innovation is accelerated by sanctions and boycott. This has happened to the Israeli weapons industry due to lack of access to weapons especially in the 1960s and 1970s
As far I remember a large reason for the water crisis is subsidizing water for agriculture which does not fit the local climate
This is based on some ideological pillar of being autarkic, as the Islamic Republic was generally built upon the fear of outside influence
sounds like if 90% of their water goes to agriculture, mostly export, and their country is cash strapped due to their habit of kidnappings, then maybe there's a simple solution here
> This is based on some ideological pillar of being autarkic, as the Islamic Republic was generally built upon the fear of outside influence
You say that if it was some cultural oddity, and not a completely understandable reaction and exactly the same any state with "western culture" would have done in the same situation.
I don't say it's a cultural oddity, western culture had its fair share of self-destructive regimes which ideological underpinnings created great disasters, especially in the 20th century
I feel like I may be insulting your intelligence with how obvious this is, but the Israeli government has had turning Iran into a failed state as an open policy objective since the 1980s. Given that Israeli interests have achieved this end in basically every non-monarchy in the region, I think this is a credible threat. Israel has a highly aggressive and influential lobby in the United States, which has posed debilitating sanctions on Iran for many years now. I’m not saying the religious leadership in Iran are the good guys, but the siege mentality is hardly irrational.
I think that's an overly simplistic and false view of Israeli-Iranian relations since 1979.
Israel had tried to help Islamist Iran negotiate with the US through the Contra debacle, shared intelligence with Iran against Iraq (failed reactor bombing) and outright sold weapons to Iran to support them against Iraq.
There was a naive belief in Israel that the daily "Death to Israel" chants are just rhetoric like in the arab countries it used to deal with, and Iran can be a quiet ally like before 1979
At the same time Iran fought Israel through their mercenaries in Lebanon up to the point where all of Iran's resources were consumed by the failed attempt to encircle Israel, which has collapsed completely in the last two years
> exactly the same any state with "western culture" would have done in the same situation
Until like a couple years ago, autarky was generally not in the Western playbook. It’s a stupid idea that tends to be embraced by stupid people. The only ones who have done it sustainably are the Kims, as a nuclear monarchy over a totalitarian state.
They have not been in the same situation, and that is sufficient explanation. No cultural geists need to be posited.
The point of autarky isn't that you want to isolate yourself from the world, but that because you credibly could, you're in a much stronger negotiating position in all those mutually beneficial deals you would like to make.
> that because you credibly could, you're in a much stronger negotiating position in all those mutually beneficial deals you would like to make
Except it doesn't put one in a stronger position. It systematically weakens the economy. It only makes sense for domestic power-consolidation since a poor economy that can't trade with anyone except the state is entirely beholden to whoever controls the state.
The USA has several regions that appear to be headed in the same direction because of some ancient laws about water rights; bureaucracies motivated by have budget/must use for only development of water resources; developers who benefit from government projects exploiting water resources (most egregiously the farming land and urban development in deserts in Southern California, and Arizona) - all under the guise of democracy documented in Cadillac Desert.
Ok, I don't see a comparison happening. Israel seems to kill americans on a regular basis. Saudi arabia doesn't seem to be much friendlier either, not to mention refusing to align with our proclaimed values.
You gotta do more to convince me that iran is any worse than either
Half the things you linked barely have anything to do with iran; certainly much less connection than saudi arabia had with 9/11. Do better!
> Ok, I don't see a comparison happening. Israel seems to kill americans on a regular basis. Saudi arabia doesn't seem to be much friendlier either, not to mention refusing to align with our proclaimed values
Both statements are false, Israel does not "kill americans on a regular basis" and Saudi Arabia has not supported proxy warfare killing thousands of Americans.
The links I pasted are well established to Iran, I can post more but that would waste both of our time as you try to synthesize new facts
Not to mention the likely hundreds of americans assassinated by mossad, cf Rise First And Kill
> Saudi Arabia has not supported proxy warfare killing thousands of Americans.
Have you never heard of 9/11? Also Wtf are you referring to? None of the proxy wars allegedly funded by iran (as if we haven't done orders of magnitude more evil things with proxy wars, cf the war in ukraine) have killed "thousands of americans".
And frankly, even if this were credible, who could blame them given the sanctions? We're actively destroying their ability to live life for seeming no reason other than arbitrary geopolitical control.
The USS Liberty is a single incident in 70 years which is a case of mistaken identification, only in Iraq there are at least 600 Iran associated deaths of US troops (https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/04/04/...) and that's probably an underestimation
About Saudi Arabia, the 9/11 hijackers might have been partially Saudi, but not backed by their government. Even if Iran only killed a thousand US troops and not thousands (marine barracks bombing, iraq war and others) that's two orders of magnitude more than Israel or Saudi Arabia, and there's a good reason, these are intentional attacks against US armed forces.
> sanctions? We're actively destroying their ability to live life for seeming no reason other than arbitrary geopolitical control.
The reasons for the sanctions is Iran's insistence on kidnapping diplomats, supporting terrorism and proliferating weapons. If you believe they are people like you and me and have agency, they are also responsible over the course of 40 years of choosing actions that led to them being completely isolated
Their country is cash strapped and needs to be independent because of US sanctions. The CIA overthrew the democratically elected government in the 50s which led to the Islamic Republic.
The CIA had supported coups in many countries yet these countries have not kidnapped 50 diplomats, that's probably the single worst thing you can do diplomatically.
Countries as religiously deranged as Iran are close US allies (Saudis), Iran had many chances of changing that in the last 40 years.
Also, that popular 50s coup story of bad imperialists vs good natives does not only seem too simple to be true, it is
That's true, but on the other hand the CIA today isn't forcing Iran to sponsor terrorist organizations or arrest women for being immodest or keep Islamists in charge. If they want to eliminate the sanctions then the path to doing so is clear and would have tremendous benefits for the Iranian people.
The Saudis are doing all of those things, but we turn a blind eye to that. The Cubans are doing none of those things, but they are still at the top of America's shit list.
Something makes me think that those aren't the reason for why Iran is everyone's favorite whipping boy in the region.
Nationalizing western assets half a century ago probably has something more to do with why they are treated the way they are.
Generally the Saudis aren't that great supporters of terror as they are made out to be, Qatar would be a better example.
The most important difference is that the deranged things the Saudis are doing aren't aimed at the West which makes them useful allies, also their current ruler is enacting reforms while Iran is only going backwards
Regarding nationalizing, Egypt had done that and has successfully jumped ship to the western sphere, it's completely possible. Saudi Aramco used to be American owned, you can nationalize with tact
The US' treatment of Cuba is the better example. It's doing none of the things the parent poster listed, yet it's still treated by the US as a pariah state. Uncle Sam doesn't care about how you treat women, or whether you have elections, but he deeply cares about you taking some corporation's stuff 70 years ago.
That is the original sin that can never be atoned for.
(For another example of that, see last night's deranged speech about Venezuela 'stealing' America's oil.)
> If they want to eliminate the sanctions then the path to doing so is clear and would have tremendous benefits for the Iranian people.
Didn't... uh, didn't they... try?
And then Trump killed it?
My understanding is that there are allegations they were still pursuing nuclear capability but, we still don't have any actual evidence, and then we bombed them anyway.
No-one normal is suggesting that the Iranians did not have practically weapons-grade fissile material, the only argument was whether we successfully destroyed it or just kicked the can down the road.
Recall that the regime calls us (the U.S) Satan, and openly calls for killing us all - and actually indoctrinates their kids to mass kill us - a result of which is attacks such as the one on the former World Trade Center.
It is really, really hard for an American to grok their worldview because it is so different then ours (and for that matter, it is NOT at all the view of all Arabs, or most Iranians or all Muslims - see the hero Ahmed El Ahmed last week!). But that is just burying your head in the sand - since the indoctrinated are ready and willing to kill US!
Now, some have an attitude, "let's believe them that they are just developing fissile material for energy, and let's even pay them gobs and gobs of money to do that. The fact they wont let us inspect is just a curious fact..." And then they are shocked when the material is really weapons grade. But if a nuclear weapon [a "dirty bomb"] went off in the States - which it 100% will if the Ayatollahs have the ability to make it happen - then IMO being shocked is not really a good enough excuse.
If you live in NY or LA, you should be aware that the regime claims they are going to take you out - at any price to themselves - as soon as they could, no different than they are targeting Jerusalem. The sanctions are an attempt to forestall some really unpleasant scenarios.
And that is when looking at just the regime in Iran. The bigger picture of how and where they invest their oil wealth and their previous American support is even more dangerous for us naive pretty summer boy western cultured folks.
I think you identify the cycle of radicalization correctly but only on a specific side.
There are people in this thread comparing Trump to Hitler. I don't think Trump is the US finest president but those of my family who weren't slaves for the Germans were slaughtered.
The fact that people throw comparisons that are false on some massive scale around and it's completely normalized is an example why losing touch with reality is not only a problem of the right
I'm not sure what you're claiming in here. Is it that deporting immigrants, and taking rights from women is as bad as trying to get billionaires to pay more taxes and reducing systemic societal biases?
It doesn't, but historically a lot of the reasons people consume art is due to fashion, and art is a way to put you in in and out groups.
So naturally if someone has different political beliefs, or has went too "commercial" people suddenly have to change course. Being a good game/book/song won't have anything to do with it
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20040303-00/?p=40...
reply