erin

It totally can be. You should avoid ubiquitous blanket statements, you're bound to be wrong a fair percentage of the time. Judgement doesn't look good on anyone. There are plenty of issues with the institution of marriage, especially since it's been established with a hetero-centric point of view. I'm a gay woman, I'm fully aware of this, and we've made active choices to do things our way, not society's, as do many other gay and straight couples. There is always nuance.

You've figured us out. Women™, the monolith. You alone have realized that we all have the same opinions, and we all require large weddings purely as a control method to discomfort everyone else present and place ourselves subconsciously in a position of power. Watch your back, Women™ are coming for you to keep our secret silent.

A tone indicator shouldn't be necessary. It should be pretty clear that different people just like different things. You might prefer a judge, but myself and my fiancée want a wedding. You claim it causes stress to the guests and participants, but all my friends and family, myself included, love attending weddings. They're fun parties to celebrate love. All women, like all people, are different. Men can like weddings too.

That doesn't say he was flawless, it said they couldn't find anything to attack him on, which is true. They liked the whole "blowing up brown people with missiles" thing. That comment isn't unilateral praise of Obama, it's an explanation of why Republicans couldn't find dirt they could use on him, because the dirt that was there was on their faces too.

I disagree. That's not the game or the experience the devs wanted to make. I don't think every game needs to be for everyone. There's always modding if you still want to play a game not designed for you. I don't think it makes someone a bad person or a "snowflake" for liking a game's identity and design philosophy to remain consistent. I wouldn't mind personally if souls games had an easy mode, though I don't really play them, but I know that fans of the series don't like the idea, and it's just not the experience the devs wanted to make. If you don't like that the devs hold that philosophy, don't play their games.

I never got into Tarkov, but I love Arma and Squad. To each their own.

Okay but I enjoy realistic milsim games. You don't have to play them. Weird take.

I happen to love those types of games, so I'm here for it. Luckily, there is plenty of games out there.

Plumber, carpenter, construction, woodcraft, metalworker, etc etc. There are plenty of good reasons to own a large vehicle. People who use a large vehicle for its intended purpose aren't the problem, it's the assholes driving them for fun that makes everyone else unsafe.

Do you think the first long truck sprang into existence in 2008? We've had super long trucks for specific use cases as long as we've had trucks. This is like one of the few times a person has a good reason to have a large vehicle, and is being safe and polite about it by staying out of the way and writing a polite note to explain. Large vehicles aren't the problem, people owning large vehicles who don't need them are the problem.

If you think that this:

Replace "machine" with "film crew", "rerun" with "do another take", and "tweak the prompt" with "provide notes". If they're giving notes to a computer or a person doesn't really change the nature of their work, only the language they use to provide those notes.

is what a director does? You have no clue what you're talking about. They're far more involved in the creative process on every level than you understand.

Your question about who AI helps is a valid one. I agree that that's what's important about AI use. I use AI in my work, but not to replace human beings, but as a tool to make easy mock ups or test ideas. I find trying to replace human creativity in a way that replaces jobs or the human spark that makes art, art, abhorrent. AI art cannot exist without humans to train on, so humans cannot be fully replaced, but I hope to never see a day where AI takes the positions of well compensated artists leeching off the work of unpaid or underpaid humans.

I'm not suggesting that the director has full responsibility for the art. They are part of a team, and the creative style of a director heavily influences the finished product. You can tell who directed a movie just by watching it. There are very important creative decisions and directions that point the team of more specialized artists in the right direction.

This is not analogous to AI art. That would be like the director of a movie telling a team of interns to cut together clips of other movies as best they see fit, within a general outline of the script. A person using AI to generate art isn't part of the creative process in the same way; they tell a machine what to do, and decide whether to rerun or tweak the prompt after seeing the result. This takes some small modicum of creativity, but it isn't creating art. It's fine for fun, or to use as a stand in tool, or to mock-up designs, but it will never have the creative direction of a human being, or stand on the same level with true masters, regardless of how well it can copy their style. It can't understand the art.

Directing is an art form of its own. The cinematography, the pacing, the set design, acting, and so much more is all influenced by the director's decisions. It would be like saying a conductor or a music producer isn't an artist. Easy to say if you don't have an understanding of the art form, but dead wrong. There are a ton of creative choices at all levels made by directors, and there's a reason we've been using them in one way or another since we first started performance art. I've worked under and beside directors in the past, and I have only the utmost respect for what a good director can do for the art.

A bad director however... I might agree with you.

That certainly is an opinion