#divine #shakespeare
Discussion
#Shakespeare
Rosy retrospection bias is why people wish they lived during chivalrous times when women had no rights and knights were slaughtering, raping, and pillaging peasant farmers.
The whole video is interesting. Not a viewpoint you'll see if you are Nostr only due to the usual Jack circle jerk around here. A jack-off if you will.
You mean CIA Jack?
It is not the kind of content I see these days. That was a look down a rabbit hole that had a rather baiting title.
I had to stop listening toward the end when she was criticizing the idea of abolishing IP laws. Also I don't really see the problem with marketing a content creation app as free of AI while using AI to code it. The content is AI free. I don't care who makes the code as long as it works. I am not anti AI but anti AI slop.
It took a bit for me to untangle what was off in the video for me.
1) It's almost a "not even wrong" problem, where one can agree on their stance of not supporting the AI industry as a driver for loss in jobs, slop, etc. etc. But they're averse to it like you'd have aversion to a color, and "The AI" is one color.
At that point you're basically arguing for manual content review. Pushed further, you'd almost expect them to start freaking out that the abacus was ever invented.
2) They're also implicitly coming from a mindset where the platform should protect their users. While at the same time, the platform's revenue model is fundamentally antithetical to their wellbeing, so they have to continually tread that dissonance between feeling like opinions matter to their farmers.
Because everything is so open on nostr, we can only expect that everything written/done can be analyzed at any level of detail. We're not asking "platforms" to protect us in any way. We WANT our data/speech to propagate as a fundamental. After that's established we have other rules to tweak the level of openness and visibility.
Not to even say it was a bad video or illogical, if you think AI=automation and you expect platforms should protect you while also farming your use of their product.
It's good to know how the other side thinks. When you're in an echo chamber like Nostr you sometimes forget the are other viewpoints out there.
Completely. Writing this helped me understand more of Corey Doctorow's perspective - solid diagnosis of problems, but the way forward is completely different if you expect platforms to protect you.
I don’t really understand what you were arguing here. Read the post like 3 times lol
They were talking about how "no ai content" seemed good, but didn't like how it would be used in content analysis, creating the app itself, and how OtherStuff had AI everywhere else in it. They basically confused & mixed up AI with automation and said they didn't want it anywhere.
The second point is about where they're coming from. They think platforms care about them, and they have a say in what they do.
They said "I don't want AI being trained from my content", expecting platforms to cater to and protect their values. Yet the platforms extract as much value from them as possible, and that includes AI training.
Nostr data is about as accessible as connecting to the internet, there's no protectors to negotiate with. You're not negotiating with anyone about what you want to say, but you also can't tell anyone what not to do with what you say.
Yea I agree with that. I think she missed the plot.
I get your point, but I'm not so sure that is a historically accurate way to say it. Modernity demonizes the middle ages to justify itself.
"Fathers, kings and clerics are oppresors." "Men are all rapey and bad." Therefore we need the modern state to take all their local power away and "give us rights." That's the foundational myth of the control system.
What if it isn't true? What if men are not all oppressors and it's actually better for competent men to hold local authority? To lead families and churches and even little independent kingdoms?...
Who the hell said all men are oppressors?
I was referring to knights during the dark ages by the way
I didn't say you said that. I'm just saying that's all sort of part of the same modern narrative frame and I question that knights in the "dark ages" were all a bunch of rapists. Or that women were generally oppressed in Christendom. The whole "dark ages" vs "enlightenment" thing is pretty loaded. What were knights and kings actually like? I'm not attacking you personally, man. I'm just not sure I buy modernity's story anymore.
I never said what modernity’s story was. I was only talking about how “chivalry” came with significant down sides that most are unaware of.
My overall point was that we remember the past more favorably than it actually was.
No, I said what *I* think modernity's story is. Speaking for myself and not trying to put any words in your mouth at all.
Chivalry was a code of honorable behavior created by christian military leaders to stop their soldiers from misbehaving on campaigns (such as mistreating peasant women) because that's part of what happens when you take soldiers into the field.
The old chivalry manuals, from before it got perverted into the modem romantic thing by Elanore of Aquitain and her Troubodours writing the King Aurther soap operas, were very solid and based.
I agree with your general point on nostalgia, I just disagree with that particular example. I think that one goes the other way around. The middle ages get a bad rap.
Sorry, man. I'm picking a nit and being pretty autistic here and I acknowledge that. I have taken an interest in this bit of history and I've been really surprised by what I found. Very decentralized and free. Hard living, but just because of nature mostly. One of the best times on human stuff. Very decentralized too.
Modernity just teaches us to think it was oppressed to deflect from the fact that modernity is actually way more oppresive on a human level.
Chivalry’s root is not Christian though. It comes from a cult that infused their values into that specific culture in order to keep a semblance of their beliefs alive because Christians were wiping out all alternative faiths.
I’m pretty sure life in modernity up until 9/11 is much better than living during the dark ages. I’d rather not deal with freaks burning witches and forcing me to sit in a church every Sunday
Man, where did you get that chivalry is not Christian? I am just not sure what to do with a claim like that. I have literally read the early chivalry manuals and they are definitely Christian manuals on moral conduct for soldiers written by Christians for Christians and full of Christian values.
I agree that life in the modernity was soft for a while, compared to starving because of a drought or or something. But that wasn't because of kings or knights. That was because of technology and we definitely have better tech now. Culture is another question.
I get that you might not like the idea of going to church if you are not a Christian and that's fine. Christians believe in free will. I don't think it was ever a wide spread thing that anyone was forced to go to church by anyone other than their parents, and parents do need to make decisions for kids.
Chivalry is about as Christian as Santa Claus
Christians say they believe in free will but they didn’t respect the free will of Galileo and his heliocentric theory
Gallileo was a egotist who made his own problems. They just wanted him to get proof before he published. Which he didn't have. The problem wasn't his theory, it was being as asshole about it.
Now everybody believes in fake science and orderly proof has been replaced with a popularity contest. Is this better?
Is your problem with chivalry because of feminism? If so, I agree. All that sir lancalot adulterous "courtly love" bullcrap is not real chivalry. The real thing was literally a Christian code of conduct for soldiers. It's that simple.
Check out "In Praise of the New Knighthood" by St. Bernard of Clairvaux. 1126. Written for the Knights Templar. That's the real thing.
BTW, fun fact, St Nicholas was a real guy and Arius certainly found out how real he was when he smacked the blasphemy out of his mouth at Ephisus.
And he actually did sneak into a guy's house once to leave gifts. It was doweries for the old widdower's daughters so they didn't end up as prostitutes. Based guy. Not currently riding around with flying reindeer however.
Sorry, Nicaea, not Ephesus.
I hope these creator of these vines are getting paid :)
Watched parts of this... I have a really low tolerance for the genre of Youtube that's "close up headshot of person speaking into ring light"...
But from what I gather, the issue here is that "and other stuff" also funds AI projects, which seems to be a conflict of interest with DeVine's no-AI stance... I guess?
She also suspects that the no -ai aspect of Devine is actually to better feed an AI etc
i agree with this girl