Do you happen to use a language model to translate or format your comments?

Just me. I spent a lot of time thinking about this, so I like talking about it.

The 'manifesto' reads very much like it was written by someone who is on Twitter way too much, and considers quote tweets to be public harrassment.

I felt like nothing gives away their disconnect from reality as much as feeling comfortable interrupting their wildly anti-human, anti non-wealthy rant to scream, "LEAVE ELON ALONE!" It was a tantrum posted as manifesto. The NYT Best Seller list has always been manipulable; I definitely have questions about this Turner Diaries/ Unabomber rant appearing on it.

Perhaps it is AI generated or semi-AI generated?

I stopped using Twitter when that right-arm raising guy took over; to me the whole website appears to have been AI generated. Perhaps I am wrong.

The arm raising thing was wild. Watching the double standard from the media as a guy with a literal nazi tattoo do the same thing with nary a comment is just so blatant.

I love that nobody calls it X

Don’t forget the drugs.

Everybody hates this and you know it, worsening the experience of real people for an absurdly small chance of personal profit

removed it

what profit?

Was this on a desktop? I'd think it's far more likely malware or a browser extension is hijacking your clipboard

Don't worry, it'll auto-spam all of your contacts when you sign up to take care of that.

I'm guessing the 'sparkle' icon will stick around, for better or worse

What does pressing this button even DO? Pressing the floppy disk saves. LLMs cannot be reduced to a mere button, and that's a whole problem with Microsoft's strategy. They seem laser-focused, for financial reasons, to reduce all of AI's myriad possibilities to a single button/identity.

The sparkles are also in Gitlab and Jira, so it seems to have become the de-facto "Call the AI" button.

I'm curious about what benefits having them on a blockchain provides, besides proof of ownership?

I'm not sure I manage to follow accurately. If you don't save the art you make then it's gone, generative or not. If you do save the output in some way (either by saving the output itself or saving the full information needed to regenerate the output) what is special about doing so on the blockchain vs anywhere else beyond the aforementioned proof of ownership?

One is of course allowed to care about proof of ownership and the method used to do so if they like :). I just didn't follow the response in context of the question of how it's different from doing the same without the blockchain otherwise.

Unrelated: Kickass you're the Monokai author - I still use that today! Have you ever posted a retrospective about Monokai?

A generative system can produce an infinity of outputs. An art platform combined with a blockchain allows you to store a finite number of outputs from the same system definitively without knowing upfront what the outputs would look like. This forces you to think carefully about your system: it should produce interesting works with each iteration. Some people call this long form generative art.

Regarding Monokai, I’ve written some history about it here: https://monokai.pro/history :)

Yah, I think the question really comes down to: what's so special about a block chain vs any other public record or database?

For example, it's just as easy - and more accessible - to put the code and example configurations with output in a github repository.

The special thing is that it’s decentralized. I know this discussion will not resolve and I’m not a blockchain zealot. I do think it’s an elegant decentralized storage system for algorithmic art where you make outputs definitive and collectible after initiating a run.

I think that's more than fair - "I like blockchain for decentralized proof of ownership more than other methods for the same." is as fine a preference as any other, of course.

Thanks for the history page :).

Of course, "proof of ownership" with generative art isn't, because pure generative art is ineligible for copyright protection (https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-de...).

You’re conflating AI art with algorithmic art. This is the reason why I wrote the article.

You mean images? Art cannot by generated by definition.

This seems, either intentionally or unintentionally, an extremely narrow view of art.

E.g. are the artists who worked on Flow (2024) no longer artists because the resulting images are generated rather than drawn? Most people would disagree, and hold/put forth a very different definition as a result, given even they were already credited as the artists on the piece before I asked the question.

Even the arguments in the courts about AI, which is a very different kind of "generated" output, stuck to showing the outputs can't be copyrighted rather than trying to argue whether the outputs were still art as the problem.

> The Glasswing Brain | Dall-E prompted by Claude Opus

Pathetic levels of slop when you cannot even write your own prompts.

Well, I thought it was cute.

I don't really use a ChatGPT subscription so I have Claude Code create a few versions of an image in different styles. I mentioned it especially because evolving from prompting an image to automated prompting loops matches some of the recent changes that we've been talking about.

I wrote the article, I really have been working and researching in the space for a decade and can share similar articles published online long before LLMs.