First, @Czarcasm is quite abrasive, though I personally feel that his contributions outweigh that issue. We don’t always see eye to eye, but I’ve rarely doubted his heart was in the right place.
As for being worse recently, well…
Under a lot of stress recently. So, I think I’ll cut them quite a lot of slack.
There’s several posters on this board who are often cranky and would rather argue than try to understand or empathize with anyone else. When given the option between interpreting a post in a kind way or a hurtful way, they pick the latter. These are trying times, but they’re not here to help the world be less trying, they’re here to take their frustrations out.
I’m using a broad brush here because I don’t think it’s helpful to shame them. Instead, everyone needs to check themselves: is this post I’m about to make increasing our empathy and understanding, or is it increasing our stress and biases?
Oof. That is a helpful reminder about something I’d forgotten. Sorry, @Czarcasm, and I will try to cut you more slack.
I’m really grateful to Wikipedia for their policies giving me a blueprint for how to positively interact with people. Stuff like “no personal attacks” and “assume good faith”, and the emphasis on objectivity, relying on reliable sources, and trying to avoid bias as much as possible. On a site like Wikipedia where all content requires consensus between anonymous strangers those things aren’t aspirations, they’re necessities.
I forget all of that stuff here much of the time. The culture is definitely different. Snark is not just accepted, it’s a big part of this board’s identity. And being your best all the time takes work. It’s easier to just snap at people. But I like myself more when I’m being my Wikipedia self. I should try to work harder on that.
There are different kinds of posts, that aren’t about either empathy or its opposite. There are topics that are emotionally neutral enough that the personal check should be: does this post contribute to the store of knowledge and understanding on this board, or does it only fulfill my own personal need to seem smart/nitpick/snark/doomsay.
I like czarcasm.
He’s funny and snippy. I enjoy his smart ass remarks.
Alas, he doesn’t like me.
It dismays me greatly.
Be best.
He was like that from before. I’ve posted thoughtful answers before and gotten snarky responses.
It sucks about the fire but I’m done with answering any of his questions.
I ordered pizza: look at what a great cook I am.
Imagine not only having the idea, but taking the time to execute it using your own creativity and judgement.
Hmmmm? Not sure I follow.
He means cut the AI crap.
Basically. If you want to produce something clever and funny you have to you know, actually produce it, not serve up some outsourced distillation of other people’s work.
That sucker doesn’t deserve your magnanimity they’re a selfish greaseball with dogshit breath.
Oh, shit, my bad. I forgot that we all got old here, my mistake.
Would you like an example of my best ASCII art from 1993?
Dunno, is it actually your own work?
It’s not about the age of the technology, it’s about the value of the output. Which, if you didn’t actually produce it, is nil.
I told ChatGPT “Show me an example of the best ASCII art from 1993.”
Creating an exact representation of ASCII art from 1993 can be tricky, but here’s an example of a well-known style from that era, featuring a simple yet impressive design. This piece reflects the creativity and skill of the early digital art scene:
_____
.' '.
/ \
| |
| O O |
| ^ |
| '-' |
\ /
'._._._.'
This is a playful face design that could have been common in early computer art forums or text-based environments like BBS (Bulletin Board Systems). The 1993 period had a lot of creative ASCII works like this, often shared on message boards and through emails. You can also find more elaborate designs from that time if you explore old ASCII art archives!
I absolutely agree with this. Years ago, I saw an ASCII version of a few seconds from a fight scene in The Matrix. Every pixel of the screen was filled. The amount of detail was awe inspiring. It took an awful lot of work to do that.
Entering a prompt into ChatGP or another AI takes no effort.
Well, surely there is a little effort, in choosing the best words to request what you want, and perhaps some trial and error? What it doesn’t take is creative talent.
Don’t call it Shirley.
What it takes is a Trump-like shamelessness to present it as anything but the inane crap it is.
“AI”’picture generating is completely worthless. By definition generic shit with no relation to reality. It is the antithesis of creativity.