as per your final question...i keep remembering a democrat who publicly stated if elected trump wouldn't be certified. so i had the thought what if they don't? what will we do about it? really. argue with each other & essentially accept it? i have no answer only the question
It's a good question. The answer is roughly the same whether we consider 2020 or 2024. In 2020 the people who claim power over us were wanting to certify invalid results. Now, perhaps, they want to refuse to certify what seem to be more or less valid results (except for the late counting on all those Democrat strongholds where, due to unspeakable evil, enough votes were manufactured for their chosen few). Evidently, a large number of people chose to assemble peaceably in the district of corruption to object to the procedure and petition for redress of legit grievances in the first week of 2021. We all see how that went.
If people were serious about, say, their claim to be "oath keepers" perhaps they would rally in a fashion consistent with enforcing the rule of the people. Protect their constitution from enemies domestic using their right to keep and bear arms and form orderly militias. Which would certainly be opposed by violence from those in power. I think their current drone experiments may be in preparation for such events. They are obviously up to no good.
My involvement in these matters won't be inside the district of corruption. I have no purpose there. My work is here, on the other side of the continent.
How should we determine whether people are doing the right thing? By their fruit ye shall know them. A good tree produces good fruit. I don't see anything good coming from the district of corruption, and I never have. So I don't anticipate any good coming from people going there to try to bring evil to bay and to corner the thieves in their dens of iniquity.
What I do think is always constructive is prayer. I pray that tyranny is ended. God's will be done. Amen.
exactly why i shared the question with my mom & here. for some time now they have been using continuance of govt language such as "acting governor" etc in msm reporting.
while such is always shocking with prep & thought possible right action can be chosen.
Wow. Okay, I'm back. What a great essay! Pure fire. Although it's not exactly related to the subject of the piece, I would like to send one entire paragraph to my brother -- with whom I've recently had an argument (not about history) wherein he said, "fine, send me some links and I'll read them". Of course he won't and I didn't, and I told him so, but he insisted, and so on and so on. They never look.
Somewhat related to the concept of not looking for yourself or, put another way, "only believing the TV" which is definitely a Boomer thing -- i.e., my brother -- I'm currently re-reading "The Medium is the Massage" by Marshall McLuhan and I find it more trenchant now than when I first read it more than 30 years ago (I didn't get it then, though, and I doubt that its authors realised at that time, either, its perspicacity). It literally does not matter what is said, so long as it comes from the "trusted" source, it'll be the true thing. Unfortunately, so many people's trust is in the wrong sources, the government(s) being chief among them.
Before going back to the top to read, I wanted to let you know that, for my part, your approach of introducing an essay with an image and an epigraph from NotX is excellent. My only proviso or request, if I may, is that you never use an AI or a digitally-created image -- the latter are admittedly harder to spot for now. Of course, it's pedantic to point out that all images we see here or on any screen are digital, but it's the original that matters since it was created by a human and not by a machine ('puter).
Because, I am an artist, myself -- something I feel I can comfortably say now that I've been a professional painter (of paintings, not walls) for the past 25+ years -- this can come across potentially as self-serving. But, I would demur and say that I'm simply in favor of real art, which is man-made, rather than false art, which is machine-made, especially when it's being used by writers. Also, it does not matter much if the image is exactly illustrative or explicative of the story about to be told, although it's great when it is, but rather that it can evoke a mood or provide a setting for the reader to carry on with the essay that follows. After all, I'm sure that most of your readers -- using my n=1 control group as an example -- turn to your missives primarily for the words, therein, which I would read with or without illustrations.
I have not used any LLM art to my knowledge. My view is that it isn’t helpful to my work. Moreover, I don’t use their term “artificial intelligence” because they are lying about it being intelligent. Back in the 1990s when these topics were making the rounds, my friends at Southwest Research Institute who were working on fuzzy mathematics, neural network learning systems, and similar topics used the term “artificial inanity” to describe much of the output. Yes, that was 30 years ago, and no, nothing I’ve seen represents any kind of breakthrough into consciousness. It’s a grift.
There are a number of artists, including at places I have visited that use digital tools to create their artwork. But there is a human mind involved. And the mind is not only intelligent it is spiritual and it is emotional.
One of the noteworthy aspects of contemporary LLM artwork is the utter failure to depict things the way we expect. As soon as it became popular I began counting fingers and coming up with extra digits. Our friend Demi Pietchell in her Starfire Codes writings, including in The Scroll, mentioned that there were archives of old information from previous episodes of advanced civilisations on Earth. I posited the theory that maybe these databases were used, so the LLM has a basis for its apparent view that many humans have six or more fingers or toes on each limb.
Another theory is that they have no sense, no instinct, for what is right, what looks right, what would be sensible to another human because of course, they are models of large language interpretation, not human at all. The nutty part is some of these psychopath grifters are wanting to put LLMs in charge of automated weapons platforms and that, friend, is going to kill a number of people before it is stopped.
But, no, I’m not going to defend artistry or writing or translating or anything else from changes in technology. About a year ago I would often include some “alt text” about where a graphic came from, but I have not been persisting in that activity.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Feel free to send your brother any passage you find relevant. But remember people who have eyes often refuse to see; people who have ears often refuse to hear. Jesus speaks of these facts, and he spoke of them two thousand years ago. So it isn’t news. But it is a difficulty.
As always, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'm going to use "artificial inanity" from now on!
The weird fingers and toes and limbs, etc. found in so many ai pictures is, indeed, comical. I asked (prompted. lol) an image ai to do a series of images that are "in the style of" my art using my website as an example or visual prompt. Some of the results were disturbing, in particular, the anatomy of the extremities. One day I might share them if for no other reason than the lols.
I do think it's good to give some kind of credit of attribution for illustrations by way of alt text, for instance, whenever you can, even if the artist is long dead. I suppose it's kind of a hat tip across the ages, or some such sentiment. In my own experience, I've been appalled at the number of times that an "official portrait" of some dignitary, university president, governor, etc., done by a living artist and, having been unveiled, has been presented in the press without mentioning the artist's name. It's like presenting a beautiful volume of a book to someone in a public ceremony but not mentioning the author. I think most people would find that odd. I too, have experienced this calumny! (It isn't exactly a calumny, but it seems kind of disrespectful at the very least).
Anyway, again, thanks for your gracious interactions and for your fiery missives. I'll have more on digital "art" inter alia, shortly.
Thanks Jim I have been looking in to many older books and I appreciate
the posts you write . I have one of Nocks books . Blessings and Strength.
Thank you.
as per your final question...i keep remembering a democrat who publicly stated if elected trump wouldn't be certified. so i had the thought what if they don't? what will we do about it? really. argue with each other & essentially accept it? i have no answer only the question
It's a good question. The answer is roughly the same whether we consider 2020 or 2024. In 2020 the people who claim power over us were wanting to certify invalid results. Now, perhaps, they want to refuse to certify what seem to be more or less valid results (except for the late counting on all those Democrat strongholds where, due to unspeakable evil, enough votes were manufactured for their chosen few). Evidently, a large number of people chose to assemble peaceably in the district of corruption to object to the procedure and petition for redress of legit grievances in the first week of 2021. We all see how that went.
If people were serious about, say, their claim to be "oath keepers" perhaps they would rally in a fashion consistent with enforcing the rule of the people. Protect their constitution from enemies domestic using their right to keep and bear arms and form orderly militias. Which would certainly be opposed by violence from those in power. I think their current drone experiments may be in preparation for such events. They are obviously up to no good.
My involvement in these matters won't be inside the district of corruption. I have no purpose there. My work is here, on the other side of the continent.
How should we determine whether people are doing the right thing? By their fruit ye shall know them. A good tree produces good fruit. I don't see anything good coming from the district of corruption, and I never have. So I don't anticipate any good coming from people going there to try to bring evil to bay and to corner the thieves in their dens of iniquity.
What I do think is always constructive is prayer. I pray that tyranny is ended. God's will be done. Amen.
exactly why i shared the question with my mom & here. for some time now they have been using continuance of govt language such as "acting governor" etc in msm reporting.
while such is always shocking with prep & thought possible right action can be chosen.
Wow. Okay, I'm back. What a great essay! Pure fire. Although it's not exactly related to the subject of the piece, I would like to send one entire paragraph to my brother -- with whom I've recently had an argument (not about history) wherein he said, "fine, send me some links and I'll read them". Of course he won't and I didn't, and I told him so, but he insisted, and so on and so on. They never look.
Somewhat related to the concept of not looking for yourself or, put another way, "only believing the TV" which is definitely a Boomer thing -- i.e., my brother -- I'm currently re-reading "The Medium is the Massage" by Marshall McLuhan and I find it more trenchant now than when I first read it more than 30 years ago (I didn't get it then, though, and I doubt that its authors realised at that time, either, its perspicacity). It literally does not matter what is said, so long as it comes from the "trusted" source, it'll be the true thing. Unfortunately, so many people's trust is in the wrong sources, the government(s) being chief among them.
Before going back to the top to read, I wanted to let you know that, for my part, your approach of introducing an essay with an image and an epigraph from NotX is excellent. My only proviso or request, if I may, is that you never use an AI or a digitally-created image -- the latter are admittedly harder to spot for now. Of course, it's pedantic to point out that all images we see here or on any screen are digital, but it's the original that matters since it was created by a human and not by a machine ('puter).
Because, I am an artist, myself -- something I feel I can comfortably say now that I've been a professional painter (of paintings, not walls) for the past 25+ years -- this can come across potentially as self-serving. But, I would demur and say that I'm simply in favor of real art, which is man-made, rather than false art, which is machine-made, especially when it's being used by writers. Also, it does not matter much if the image is exactly illustrative or explicative of the story about to be told, although it's great when it is, but rather that it can evoke a mood or provide a setting for the reader to carry on with the essay that follows. After all, I'm sure that most of your readers -- using my n=1 control group as an example -- turn to your missives primarily for the words, therein, which I would read with or without illustrations.
Excelsior!
I have not used any LLM art to my knowledge. My view is that it isn’t helpful to my work. Moreover, I don’t use their term “artificial intelligence” because they are lying about it being intelligent. Back in the 1990s when these topics were making the rounds, my friends at Southwest Research Institute who were working on fuzzy mathematics, neural network learning systems, and similar topics used the term “artificial inanity” to describe much of the output. Yes, that was 30 years ago, and no, nothing I’ve seen represents any kind of breakthrough into consciousness. It’s a grift.
There are a number of artists, including at places I have visited that use digital tools to create their artwork. But there is a human mind involved. And the mind is not only intelligent it is spiritual and it is emotional.
One of the noteworthy aspects of contemporary LLM artwork is the utter failure to depict things the way we expect. As soon as it became popular I began counting fingers and coming up with extra digits. Our friend Demi Pietchell in her Starfire Codes writings, including in The Scroll, mentioned that there were archives of old information from previous episodes of advanced civilisations on Earth. I posited the theory that maybe these databases were used, so the LLM has a basis for its apparent view that many humans have six or more fingers or toes on each limb.
Another theory is that they have no sense, no instinct, for what is right, what looks right, what would be sensible to another human because of course, they are models of large language interpretation, not human at all. The nutty part is some of these psychopath grifters are wanting to put LLMs in charge of automated weapons platforms and that, friend, is going to kill a number of people before it is stopped.
But, no, I’m not going to defend artistry or writing or translating or anything else from changes in technology. About a year ago I would often include some “alt text” about where a graphic came from, but I have not been persisting in that activity.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Feel free to send your brother any passage you find relevant. But remember people who have eyes often refuse to see; people who have ears often refuse to hear. Jesus speaks of these facts, and he spoke of them two thousand years ago. So it isn’t news. But it is a difficulty.
As always, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'm going to use "artificial inanity" from now on!
The weird fingers and toes and limbs, etc. found in so many ai pictures is, indeed, comical. I asked (prompted. lol) an image ai to do a series of images that are "in the style of" my art using my website as an example or visual prompt. Some of the results were disturbing, in particular, the anatomy of the extremities. One day I might share them if for no other reason than the lols.
I do think it's good to give some kind of credit of attribution for illustrations by way of alt text, for instance, whenever you can, even if the artist is long dead. I suppose it's kind of a hat tip across the ages, or some such sentiment. In my own experience, I've been appalled at the number of times that an "official portrait" of some dignitary, university president, governor, etc., done by a living artist and, having been unveiled, has been presented in the press without mentioning the artist's name. It's like presenting a beautiful volume of a book to someone in a public ceremony but not mentioning the author. I think most people would find that odd. I too, have experienced this calumny! (It isn't exactly a calumny, but it seems kind of disrespectful at the very least).
Anyway, again, thanks for your gracious interactions and for your fiery missives. I'll have more on digital "art" inter alia, shortly.