1jun2026

O hai.

I have been having this ongoing argument, erm, discussion about AI with f2tE, who like me is an artist, and moreover, one who, at least for the foreseeable future, is (at least somewhat) shielded from AI's disruptive effects.

F2’s feelings, which I have seen expressed with increasing strength and frequency elseweb, is that “AI” is evil, full stop, no exceptions; that it cannot be compared to other modern disruptions; that it is a order of magnitude (or more) dangerous than digital photography was to film, or computer art was to traditional, physical media.

Let alone painting, drawing and engraving when photography came in—it was gonna be the death of the visual arts!

Except not.

Grant you, the moral panics for (other) computer aided art making were not as strong, not least because people with some amount of talent still had to direct the computer to make the art or click the shutter (though given the lower barrier to entry, I'd say the photographers were more bent out of shape than the painters.) —But after the initial explosion of truly terrible designs/photos/art made with these tools, the dedicated users started pushing their boundaries, and that is how we get these splendid slo-mo videos of eagles grabbing fish out of rivers, all kinds of artists making “breyer horse models” or ABJ dolls for their adoring fans; and a slew of reasonably designed instructional materials for a ton of niche interests—because anyone, with a bit of effort, can make tutorials of their chosen passion with quite-average typing, editing, typesetting, design and photographic (or videographic) skills (now that most of this stuff is video you don't even need to talk, let alone write).

I've been making this observation for years, and the lowered barrier to entry is in my view unequivocally a good thing.

But AI slop! What is to be done about that?

I haven't really encountered anyone seriously defending the frankensteined melange of original creators’ works that AI is pouring out by way of “theft” of original creators (which I'd argue is more the problem of transferring the value of their work from workers creators to the capitalists—not exactly a new problem; where the orders-of-magnitude comes in is the efficiency, not to mention that it's now the white-collar artists, as opposed to the blue-collar artisan/workers historically targeted by these threats), but what I and some other defenders have attempted to make a case for is separating out the capitalism from the tool: wielded by sophisticated users, “AI”/LLM is brilliant for assisting radiologists in detecting patterns of cancerous tumours, or helping researchers identify potentially useful proteins amongst millions (or billions) of possibilities.

Or, say, by individual artists using their own work (or perhaps carefully curated [i.e. public domain or paid-for rights’] sources) as the seeds for ideas. I'd seen this sort of thing floated back when AI imagery was just getting going, but now that it's getting ever harder to differentiate it from “real” images, those edge cases are getting drowned with the ‘no, bad, absolutely not’ rhetoric.

But how is this moral panic different from earlier ones in which people were faced with the loss of their jobs (the luddites didn't hate the mechanized looms, they hated they were being cheated of their share of the profits—the mill owners’ greed was bad; the average person being able to afford cloth for more than two outfits, good) or sophisticated deceptions (people using whatever tools were available to hand to copy successful art/business models/technology is not at all a new problem, never mind cheating customers by whatever method is as old as the hills!)

Let alone the quandries people had to address after we (by which I mean the US) dropped atomic bombs on people? Radiation therapy saves lives, but nuclear energy can be—and is—deadly even when it's not being used explicitly to slaughter. (Perhaps the modern update would be drones—US using drones to kill people, horrific; the erosion of privacy we had before these tiny, invisible cameras is a problem that will only get worse; or even the drones’ spoiling the pristine quiet of nature with the mosquito-like whine of motors—all bad; Ukraine using drones in creative ways to defend itself from invasion, or my kayaking instructors using it as a teaching tool: I'd say, good.)

I mean, drone photography and videography has yielded some absolutely gorgeous, and, more to the point, previously inaccessible views of the world, the kind of thing once restricted only to big-budgeted situations like tentpole films, that could afford to hire helicopters or planes to shoot that sort of thing.

IOW, why does AI have people up in arms, but not drone technology? (Let alone nuclear power, which isn't exactly safe...)

Cynicism suggests unfamiliarity crossed with middle class concerns.

I'm retired, so AI isn't coming for my livelihood (though I'm surely invested in differentiating AI produced lies from “truth”) but I grew up in the aftermath of the atomic age. I don't believe tech can be hidden, any more than ‘security through obscurity’ is a robust protocol. The way forward is to come up with social rules (starting with laws) for how we use tech, and that's something we know how to do: no filling trenches with mustard gas. No dropping atomic bombs on people. Killing people with bioengineered viruses is heinous. All of these technologies are currently available, but the default assumption is that even the most evil of governments will refrain from using them.

No-one, so far as I can tell, is suggesting that we just stop collecting data, not least because given capitalism, it's simply not gonna happen. We have, however, enacted laws (however thin) to help protect people (combined, I would argue, with increasing comfort with the loss of privacy as the default of our modern world). Time will take care of the familiarity, so then the problem becomes, how do we regulate AI?

Laws are not by any means a perfect solution, but they are, I believe, more effective than tearing hair and declaring ‘this must not be!’

Perhaps the real problem is that, given the current political climate, people in general don't have a whole lot of faith in our legal and political institutions to protect us. That's a fair cop, but again, it seems to me the answer is to try and fix things, not wish new technology would go away: so long as the 1% stands to make money on tech, that's not happening. Far better to address the root problem, and I honestly don't know of any other method than by fixing the political situation. I mean, the alternative, revolution/civil war, has an even worse success rate.

So it was more than a bit interesting to listen to Hanfu Girl's observations about AI vis a vis western and eastern cultures. Hanfu has a website, but her most interesting work seems to happen on instagram, where she delivers short, pungent comparisons between western and eastern culture. The first one I encountered was the ways in which China (& Japan) emphasize the surface beauty of fabric over the fit on the body: someone focused on western tailoring traditions would ding the bunching of fabric under the arms of traditional Chinese dress, whereas the Asian textile aficionado might deride the way all the darts, armscyes and seams distracted and cut up the uninterrupted beauty of the fabric and its design.

Hanfugirl is in a relatively rare place of being able to speak to western audiences while being able also to access Chinese thought, and she points out that while novelty is prized in Western art, in contrast, traditional Asian art—and I'm no expert on China, but I can speak, a little, to Japanese traditions—you as the student are expected to copy the masters for quite a long time before being permitted to create your own stuff.

Add in the expectation of subtle feedback from the teacher, and voila, a model for using AI that's a good deal more positive (& in fact the one I've seen proposed by western enthusiasts): give it a prompt, correct it, rinse, lather, and repeat until something good starts to come out of it.

I really appreciated this, because I'm simply not a very innovative person—I come up with new ideas comparatively slowly, by trying the same thing over and over (and over) until enough mistakes creep in natural variation accrues to point me in a potentially interesting new direction. My job as artist is to use my judgement to recognize which variations are worth pursuing. I admit, the idea of speeding that process up by offloading a lot of the fumbling around to a machine that works many times faster than I can is an appealing one.

But to get there, we need to start thinking about AI as a powerful tool, rather than an unmitigated evil.

In the meantime, I guess I'll be making more of these little physical media doodles, cuz they're low enough barrier to entry, that is easy, for my molasses slow mind to handle.

4may2026

So I gather today is a sort of the big Star Wars day, (& may the fourth be with you!:) but alas, I haven't any linkies for that; but I do have one for the first Star Trek movie, which I'd argue paved the way for the SW franchise. Steve Shrives asks the question,

Is Star Trek: the Motion Picture actually a good movie?

The answer, of course, is still no, but it was kind of interesting to watch the take of someone who was too young to see it in the theatre, because, of course, that's where I saw it, and as much as I wanted it to be a good movie...it just wasn't.

What I was too young to have seen in the theatre—because my parents weren't movie-goers, wouldn't’ve spent the money to take us regardless, besides which at that point I hadn't discovered sf&f—was the 1968 2001: A Space Odyssey; I think I've seen this film in its entirety, almost certainly at some sf&f con, but I never made the connection between it and the turgid bits of the later film that unsuccessfully tried to cash in on its themes.

I do recall most Star Trek fen being rather disappointed with The Motion Picture, which absolutely makes sense: Star Trek is not and never has been anything like 2001, and trying to chop it to fit was doomed to failure. So one question Mr Shrives’ videoessay answered for me, that I never really understood before, was why the movie was so bad—something young-adult me just accepted as a sort of, oh well, too bad.

To be honest, my favourite iteration was the 72–73 animated series, which had the advantage of the original cast & director (and some of its best & most popular writers, David Gerrold, who wrote The Trouble with Tribbles, the story that originally hooked me, and D.C. Fontana) not to mention hitting at that early teen/puberty age that makes anything experienced then as “the best.” (Plus of course the feline M'ress, she was cool:) —None of the following series have ever managed to engage my interest enough to watch more than an episode or two: by then, I'd discovered the entire sf&f field, and even today, I feel it's difficult for any commercially made film (or tv series) to replicate the particularity and inventiveness individual authors can achieve, constrained as businesses are by the expense and corporate constraints.

And, I have to say, it's just so odd, the way people a generation, or two, talk about the era in which I grew up, because their lived experience, though related, is nonetheless different. Their off-the-cuff assertions are so often just nonsense.

IOW, I'm turning into my parents, but about stuff they didn't really feel was fit for grownups. (It's still really weird to me to see grown adults into this stuff, and I've had, um, at least three decades to get used to the idea...) In fact, now it seems mostly grownups (afict?) that are the ones getting excited about Star Trek (& Star Wars)—the kids have mostly moved on to new things?

Which to be sure, I'm absolutely fine with, the world would be dull indeed without those fresh infusions. —And, by the way, here's a birthday card for one of those young'uns.

1may2026

I know why ‘May [the] 4th’ is for Star Wars but I'm too old to be familiar with the ‘it's gonna be may’ meme (I'm, as they say in the comments, that 10,000th person to learn about it;) via Language Jones, who made a delightful video explaining why the pop singer shifted his vowel from mi (me) to the dipthong mai (long ‘a’) Hint: it's not because he didn't know better!

It's so nice to have something fun, entertaining & educational to celebrate May Day—another of those minor holidays for which I have a fondness—instead of more dreary news.

On a similar (heh) note, here's a bookmark, another little happiness, at least for me. Or may:)

24apr2026

Today's art is pretty enough, but the linkies, alas, fall in the fridayfugly territory. (One of the things I admit to really appreciating while at Baja surf camp last year was that we were in the middle of nowhere in the Mexican desert—admittedly on coast of said desert—was absolutely no connection to the outside world. This is why I find myself, more and more, understanding my mom's, if not decision precisely, but trending habit, of ignoring the larger political realities, as she got older: she wanted to die, if not happy—cancer is not a fun way to go, and she was luckier than most—at least content.

I'm not at all happy about being one of those complicit Deutsch folx during WWII US citizens during the current heinous regime, but I don't know what much I can do about it except hope enough of the country holds together until the November mid-terms. I will say that even the die-hard Trump supporter has taken down his sign, a somewhat encouraging, er, sign.)

I'm hardly the only one who feels this despair: Randy Rainbow is known for his politically inspired song parodies, which while sharply critical of our appalling political landscape, still are darkly funny. Not this time. It is just...sad. I wasn't the only one to notice, other commenters said the same.

Lithub's excerpt of Ibram X Kendi's new book, Chain of Ideas: The Origins of Our Authoritarian Age has definitely moved it to my to-read pile; here's this German immigrant descedent's (from the 1800s, with the excuse of desiring not to be war fodder) money quote:

To be racist is to see peoples of color as eternal immigrants. In 2019, President Trump told four congresswomen of color—three of whom were born in the United States—to “go back” to the “corrupt” and “crime-infested” countries they “originally came from.” Trump’s own paternal grandfather, Friedrich, originally came from Germany in 1885. He traveled back home in 1901 and met his wife, Elisabeth. They moved to the United States together in 1902 and returned to Germany in 1904. They came back to the U.S. for good in 1905—Elisabeth pregnant with Trump’s father, Fred. Trump’s mother, Mary Anne, immigrated from Scotland in 1930. Trump, a son of immigrants. To be racist is to see White people as eternal natives.

Your brain on money, via Slacktivist, is one of the several articles I've seen on the growing online gambling problem. Also via Slacktivist, here's another, proving out the first one's assertion that it generally takes a country about 7 years to realize what a terrible idea legalizing online betting is. Especially chilling is the cite about a writer who thoroughly researched the topic before ever placing a bet—and still getting sucked in; as with so many ills, people are lured in by the late-stage capitalism frustrations burdening them: flat or falling wages, shrinking horizons. I think this same article noted the average age for people buying their first home has crept up to 40.

Yet as Hanna Horvath notes, by far the most corrosive aspect is the gambler's reduction of their sportsball players into elements to be cursed, instead of the social bonding activity sports—especially professional sports that people do not play themselves—is sold as; instead their loss of affect becomes so severe they become emotionally (& otherwise) detached from all aspects of their everyday lives, leaving behind spouses and children even while physically present.

But at least you could argue that the gambling addicts, however damaging to others, are victims; not so with the Gisele Pelicot's abuser. Here, the hero is unambiguously Pelicot herself, who demanded her identity during her rapist-husband's trial be public, as she, after all, had nothing to hide.

I don't know why people were surprized or shocked Deepak Chopra associated with Jeffrey Epstein; anybody who says his gonads are thermonuclear balls (or some such—it's been 20 years, and I can't find the quote) when battling a beleaguered opponent in court over copyrighting yoga poses, which yanno, have been around for thousands of years, is clearly an asshole, if the huge profits he's made off his franchises weren't indicator enough—but me being an open source advocate, and believer in yoga for everyone (also the aim of BKS Iyengar who perhaps did more than anyone else to popularize asana practise in the West) I was immediately repelled by his greed and arrogance; but I was rather saddened to see that the founder of my favourite style, ashtanga (an aerobic fusion of Eastern yoga and western gymnastics, distinguished by its continuous and vigourous flowing movements) K. Pattabhi Jois, was also creditably accused of “sexual misconduct” of women.

Le sigh.

(That said, there is so much good, free info on yoga now—Yoga with Adriene cracked that dam, and now there's also Yoga with Kassandra, Charlie Follows, and EmmaForeverYoga, all of whom I've tried, all of whom at least intersect with the Power (i.e. ashtanga) Yoga, and can recommend. (Adriene is also excellent, especially for beginners, but I would say she hews more to the Iyengar style, which focuses on using props for careful alignment, as opposed to the flowing sequences. You'll still get a workout, though! and the others also have beginner or relaxing sequences;)

And on that slightly higher note, here's a unicorn-pretty chaser.

21apr2026

Ah, the linkies are once again piling up, so I'm posting this older piece so I have an excuse to tidy up my tabs...

• via Pharyngula, a close read of Sapiens It's pretty entertaining so far.
• via Pro-Science, Shizuoka is literally a model city. It took me a moment to understand this adorable visual pun, I'm slow. And in fact, I'm not certain but what I actually may have visited this city, the name seems awfully familiar. (Needless to say I did not pick up on the element cited here, I'm sure I would've noticed. Right? Right! Oh well...)
• In other heartening news the almost-extinct flightless kakapo parrots are slowly recovering. Yay, another reason to visit New Zealand—not because I actually expect to see these rare animals, but to support a place that enables their survival.

Aaaaand, a bit of nostalgia mixed media finally photo'ed so it could go off to its forever home.

7apr2026

I have been, as one of my younger siblings would say, naaaaaaaauuuughhh-tye.

First I angsted and procrastinated over buying a new camera to the point that B&H was closed for Passover, (& so was Adorama), so I (gulp) purchased it thru the evil Amazon. Because the 13th ship date was gonna be toooooo laaaaaate. Then I was shamed by Philosophy Tube into finally signing up for Nebula, not least because Lindsay Ellis had a half off deal.

HBomb and Philosophy Tube have their entire catalog, so far as I can tell, on youtube, but Lindsay Ellis mostly does not. So I've been plowing through her essays, and (for the most part) enjoying them hugely, but I wanted to push back, a touch, on an entertaining, and possibly accurate, but in my opinion altogether justified assertion that Shrek is

...a mean little movie.

I don't actually dispute that Shrek is “mean” to the Disney corp.

Where I think we disagree is whether Disney deserved it. Ellis’ argument, if I'm following it correctly, is that the snark embodied in Shrek —especially the early scene in which Shrek and Donkey are confronted by the automaton-choir's sing-song goody-goody instructions for ass-kissing behavior required in Dulac, before having the gate slammed in their faces, was (unnecessarily) cruel, and that Shrek's parodying of Disney (as when the Princess Fiona's singing causes the little bluebird to explode as it attempts to match her high note, clearly riffing off the classic Snow White Cinderella singing with cute animals) undermined Disney's confidence to the point that they started lampshading their earlier films, chickened out on proper Disney villains, etc.

Whereas I, pissed off by their hair-trigger legal defense of their IP—which, a) mostly comes from us (fairy tales, c'mon; or stuff written a century ago, really?) and b) is ultimately valuable only because we make it so, felt savagely vindicated.

Honestly, I liked the lampshading in Frozen (in which Hans takes Anna to task for falling in love with her handsome prince in one day), and while I agree it might've been nice to to make not every. single. villain. since. a twist villain—I think Zootopia II (major spoiler incoming! —skip to the next para if you like—would've actually been a stronger and more interesting film if Lynxley had been (even) more conflicted about his family loyalties, and had ultimately gone over to the good side—yeah, I know, not likely in a rich person, but certainly possible, and yeah, that might've made it too much his story, instead of Judi Hopps and Nick Wilde's struggle to make their partnership actually work past that first heady success.

But hey, aren't kid movies supposed to model what could be? It's not like the rest of the film isn't wildly aspirational.

So, okay, Ellis simply isn't as concerned by the fates of all the little creators that have been stomped on by the Mouse. (And that's okay, we can't all be all things! But it does, I think, explain our differing opinions.) That said, Disney parks are sanitized, even Ellis admits that. They are not friendly to the fringes—you won't find graffiti, ever, at any Disney theme park. Nor any other out-of-bounds behavior, because they spy on every square foot. (Well, excepting their own, illegal behaviour, such as the nightly fireworks: it's against the local noise ordinance, so they simply pay the fine. Every night. That's according to Lindsay, whom I presume knows what she's talking about. My immediate reaction was that the town of Anaheim needs to raise the cost of the fines, stat. But they also utterly depend upon dizzy economically so...devil's bargain. That should not, excepting in late-stage capitalism, ever have to be made.) The creeping surveillance that dominates Great Britain, and is slowly taking over in the US has been a feature there, for years.

I think the biggest difference is that Ellis is fascinated—invested—embedded—in pop culture in a way that I'm not. She likes amusement parks, whereas I find them a crashing, inauthentic bore. She likes transformer movies, whereas I think they're manbaby pap. And so on. Mind you, I have my own trashy delights (which among other things, include dizzy animation) so I get it; but it's always easier to excuse the excreta of your own sacred cows than others’.

And really, Dizzy is a huge, multi-billion dollar corp. They can take a little ribbing. Although, like Ellis, I surely wish they'd quit with the live-action remakes and make more good stuff—as her commenters noted, they know what they need to do, lean into the multicultural, as they did in Red, Luca or Encanto.

Either that, or—as Ellis asserts (& I agree)—fade into irrelevance.

Oh, and here's some art that actually does tie in to today's rant. Can you spot how?