Suddenly reminded of all the slop artists who justified it not for productivity or efficiency reasons, but because they would "never" be able to create visual art otherwise.
-
@SymTrkl But again, lest you start feeling down about all this...
Having Faith's brain isn't a prerequisite for anything. ANYONE can learn to code just like anyone can learn to draw or anyone can learn to wire a circuit breaker box.
Also, the weird white man obsession with IQ and with finding 10x engineers is so catastrophically dumb. They use all the wrong metrics to decide who is and who isn't and it all ends up just being misogyny at the end of the day. The really good ones are quietly in the corner getting underpaid to fix all the mistakes of the loud white man idiots who think they're 10x engineers.
Oh, and that's women's work, with everything that feminism has spent the last 100 years figuring out that that implies.
@faithisleaping Weirdly, because I know I take any excuse to feel down about myself, not so much.
Mostly because when you were talking about layers of abstraction, I was thinking about how I'll be stepping through the debugger for that Microcorruption CTF that I do, and how I'll see values getting store to the stack or specific registers, and know on some level what the C code had to look like. And I can definitely see how, even if I understood everything top to bottom, there would be a point where I couldn't keep the assembly and an upper level abstraction in my head at the same time, but that wouldn't necessarily prevent me from understanding both.Besides, I don't need to be Faith because I don't want Faith's job.
-
@faithisleaping Weirdly, because I know I take any excuse to feel down about myself, not so much.
Mostly because when you were talking about layers of abstraction, I was thinking about how I'll be stepping through the debugger for that Microcorruption CTF that I do, and how I'll see values getting store to the stack or specific registers, and know on some level what the C code had to look like. And I can definitely see how, even if I understood everything top to bottom, there would be a point where I couldn't keep the assembly and an upper level abstraction in my head at the same time, but that wouldn't necessarily prevent me from understanding both.Besides, I don't need to be Faith because I don't want Faith's job.
@SymTrkl @faithisleaping Just so we’re clear, I could barely follow what you just described about the stack or registers, and only at the most superficial level.
-
@SymTrkl @faithisleaping Just so we’re clear, I could barely follow what you just described about the stack or registers, and only at the most superficial level.
@Willow See, this is why they should make kids use RPN calculators in school.
@faithisleaping -
@faithisleaping Weirdly, because I know I take any excuse to feel down about myself, not so much.
Mostly because when you were talking about layers of abstraction, I was thinking about how I'll be stepping through the debugger for that Microcorruption CTF that I do, and how I'll see values getting store to the stack or specific registers, and know on some level what the C code had to look like. And I can definitely see how, even if I understood everything top to bottom, there would be a point where I couldn't keep the assembly and an upper level abstraction in my head at the same time, but that wouldn't necessarily prevent me from understanding both.Besides, I don't need to be Faith because I don't want Faith's job.
@faithisleaping Also, I included the GG panels as a joke, but they're also illustrative (hehe) of my earlier point. I can go over that drawing of Agatha Widlerizing a gadget at length, talking about the silhouetting, illusion of motion, eye travel, and the things that could have been done differently to enhance the reader impact. (Nothing against Phil Foglio, but he's a lot stronger at detailed environments and facial expressions than his is at conveying action.) And I think that there's something of your point about plateaus in there as well, because I personally have a really hard time drawing the type of detailed backgrounds packed with little jokes that are something of a Foglio trademark. And it's hard not to spin that off into "these artists are just materially better," which is just as icky a concept as "my engineering brain is simply superior."
Whoops we accidentally invented auteur theory for computer science.
-
Suddenly reminded of all the slop artists who justified it not for productivity or efficiency reasons, but because they would "never" be able to create visual art otherwise.
Imagine looking at someone who studied and practiced for years to hone a skill, and seeing an injustice. Assuming that you are owed the results of hard work you haven't done.
The fun thing is, this isn't new. This is the fallacy of natural talent. The uncomfortable minimization of our work as "you're so talented, I could never..."
Like we just woke up and started drawing good. Spoiler alert: Everyone can draw.¹ The only thing "talent" gets you is speed of acquisition, because visual art is 100% a learned skill. And this holds true for every creative endeavor. The only difference between making good art and saying "I tried and I could never..." is that the former kept going. Everyone starts bad. Everyone has to learn and improve.And that, more than anything, is what infuriates me about AI. Even if it weren't objectively bad for literally every other reason, it enables this mindset that creativity is this utterly valueless thing hoarded by those of us born to be great at it. The mindset of "my neighbor's kid could make this for twenty bucks." The mindset of "I'll pay you in exposure." Of "I did the hard part of coming up with the idea, now all you have to do is write the novel." Of "why pay [a fair wage for a skilled artist] when we could just generate this with AI?"
¹ No really, everyone. My partner has aphantasia, the inability to visualize objects in her mind, and I've seen her paint from reference, give cogent feedback on my work, and demonstrate a clear understanding of form and space in games like The Sims and Minecraft where the visualization is largely offloaded to the game world. She's really good at art, despite a limitation that most people would say should make it impossible. Everyone.
@SymTrkl dear goddess all of this...
I've had people say similar things to me. You know why I'm this good at writing the kind of things I write? Because I do it a lot it's not some innate genetic predisposition to writing short horny shit, it's just practice. You should see my early stuff. I'm glad my Twitter account went away. There is some embarrassing stuff buried in the depths of that archive -
Suddenly reminded of all the slop artists who justified it not for productivity or efficiency reasons, but because they would "never" be able to create visual art otherwise.
Imagine looking at someone who studied and practiced for years to hone a skill, and seeing an injustice. Assuming that you are owed the results of hard work you haven't done.
The fun thing is, this isn't new. This is the fallacy of natural talent. The uncomfortable minimization of our work as "you're so talented, I could never..."
Like we just woke up and started drawing good. Spoiler alert: Everyone can draw.¹ The only thing "talent" gets you is speed of acquisition, because visual art is 100% a learned skill. And this holds true for every creative endeavor. The only difference between making good art and saying "I tried and I could never..." is that the former kept going. Everyone starts bad. Everyone has to learn and improve.And that, more than anything, is what infuriates me about AI. Even if it weren't objectively bad for literally every other reason, it enables this mindset that creativity is this utterly valueless thing hoarded by those of us born to be great at it. The mindset of "my neighbor's kid could make this for twenty bucks." The mindset of "I'll pay you in exposure." Of "I did the hard part of coming up with the idea, now all you have to do is write the novel." Of "why pay [a fair wage for a skilled artist] when we could just generate this with AI?"
¹ No really, everyone. My partner has aphantasia, the inability to visualize objects in her mind, and I've seen her paint from reference, give cogent feedback on my work, and demonstrate a clear understanding of form and space in games like The Sims and Minecraft where the visualization is largely offloaded to the game world. She's really good at art, despite a limitation that most people would say should make it impossible. Everyone.
@SymTrkl Yeah, i consider "talent" a slur made to devalue practice.
Going slightly sideways, after i quit IT i kept coding for my own fun, and these days it is a form of art for me. An interesting side effect of it is that i feel similar about all the vibe coding as artists feel about genAI art, only with a bit less despair.
The saddest part for me is the motivation-killing effect of all the LLM stuff. I can still enjoy coding because i'm already good at it. But i given up trying to practice drawing a couple of years ago, since it doesn't feel like there is any point.
-
@SymTrkl dear goddess all of this...
I've had people say similar things to me. You know why I'm this good at writing the kind of things I write? Because I do it a lot it's not some innate genetic predisposition to writing short horny shit, it's just practice. You should see my early stuff. I'm glad my Twitter account went away. There is some embarrassing stuff buried in the depths of that archive@mindpersephone You don't want to see the years of absolute trash that I wrote without posting anywhere before I started doing horny microfic on fedi.
-
@SymTrkl Yeah, i consider "talent" a slur made to devalue practice.
Going slightly sideways, after i quit IT i kept coding for my own fun, and these days it is a form of art for me. An interesting side effect of it is that i feel similar about all the vibe coding as artists feel about genAI art, only with a bit less despair.
The saddest part for me is the motivation-killing effect of all the LLM stuff. I can still enjoy coding because i'm already good at it. But i given up trying to practice drawing a couple of years ago, since it doesn't feel like there is any point.
@theartlav The biggest failing of STEM education is that they let people keep believing that there's any meaningful difference between art and engineering.
-
@faithisleaping Weirdly, because I know I take any excuse to feel down about myself, not so much.
Mostly because when you were talking about layers of abstraction, I was thinking about how I'll be stepping through the debugger for that Microcorruption CTF that I do, and how I'll see values getting store to the stack or specific registers, and know on some level what the C code had to look like. And I can definitely see how, even if I understood everything top to bottom, there would be a point where I couldn't keep the assembly and an upper level abstraction in my head at the same time, but that wouldn't necessarily prevent me from understanding both.Besides, I don't need to be Faith because I don't want Faith's job.
@SymTrkl yaay someone else reading GG!
-
@mindpersephone You don't want to see the years of absolute trash that I wrote without posting anywhere before I started doing horny microfic on fedi.
@SymTrkl oh I believe it. All of us have something like that and it's a requirement of getting as good at this as we are.
-
@SymTrkl oh I believe it. All of us have something like that and it's a requirement of getting as good at this as we are.
@mindpersephone "Your first 1000 paintings will be garbage."
-
@SymTrkl yaay someone else reading GG!
@anyia Literally dozens of us. As I recall @RoseRaven and @theogrin are also fans.
@faithisleaping -
@anyia Literally dozens of us. As I recall @RoseRaven and @theogrin are also fans.
@faithisleaping@SymTrkl @anyia @RoseRaven @theogrin @faithisleaping I also used to at some point, but then the archive anxiety got the best of me.
-
@SymTrkl @anyia @RoseRaven @theogrin @faithisleaping I also used to at some point, but then the archive anxiety got the best of me.
@theartlav GG is one of those comics where I can only binge, I just go back every couple years and catch up.
@anyia @RoseRaven @theogrin @faithisleaping -
Suddenly reminded of all the slop artists who justified it not for productivity or efficiency reasons, but because they would "never" be able to create visual art otherwise.
Imagine looking at someone who studied and practiced for years to hone a skill, and seeing an injustice. Assuming that you are owed the results of hard work you haven't done.
The fun thing is, this isn't new. This is the fallacy of natural talent. The uncomfortable minimization of our work as "you're so talented, I could never..."
Like we just woke up and started drawing good. Spoiler alert: Everyone can draw.¹ The only thing "talent" gets you is speed of acquisition, because visual art is 100% a learned skill. And this holds true for every creative endeavor. The only difference between making good art and saying "I tried and I could never..." is that the former kept going. Everyone starts bad. Everyone has to learn and improve.And that, more than anything, is what infuriates me about AI. Even if it weren't objectively bad for literally every other reason, it enables this mindset that creativity is this utterly valueless thing hoarded by those of us born to be great at it. The mindset of "my neighbor's kid could make this for twenty bucks." The mindset of "I'll pay you in exposure." Of "I did the hard part of coming up with the idea, now all you have to do is write the novel." Of "why pay [a fair wage for a skilled artist] when we could just generate this with AI?"
¹ No really, everyone. My partner has aphantasia, the inability to visualize objects in her mind, and I've seen her paint from reference, give cogent feedback on my work, and demonstrate a clear understanding of form and space in games like The Sims and Minecraft where the visualization is largely offloaded to the game world. She's really good at art, despite a limitation that most people would say should make it impossible. Everyone.
@SymTrkl@anarres.family Oh we draw all the time with essential tremor, dyspraxia, and aphantasia
And it's annoying to be told we're talented because we're literally forced to make up for our own weaknesses AAAAAA -
@theartlav GG is one of those comics where I can only binge, I just go back every couple years and catch up.
@anyia @RoseRaven @theogrin @faithisleaping@SymTrkl @theartlav @anyia @RoseRaven @faithisleaping
More than reasonable, and to be truthful, I sometimes go back and archive binge for days at a time. Just like re-reading Narbonic! But even longer.
There are a lot of details which aren't easy to catch the first time, too. And you can play Spot the Winslow.
Still, it's a lot, best done as a long-term project if you want to catch up or start.
[ETA] Back to the original topic, I too have this weird thing where my brain is able to immediately grasp the nature of a system, to make the leaps necessary. This isn't the same thing as having studied them, and nor am I anywhere near as capable as someone who has. It's just a neat thing my mind is wired to do.
Does that make me better than anyone else? Hah, not in the slightest. Not smarter, either. It's just a quirk of the wiring. And I wish more folks could get that: I'm not a genius by any metric!
-
Suddenly reminded of all the slop artists who justified it not for productivity or efficiency reasons, but because they would "never" be able to create visual art otherwise.
Imagine looking at someone who studied and practiced for years to hone a skill, and seeing an injustice. Assuming that you are owed the results of hard work you haven't done.
The fun thing is, this isn't new. This is the fallacy of natural talent. The uncomfortable minimization of our work as "you're so talented, I could never..."
Like we just woke up and started drawing good. Spoiler alert: Everyone can draw.¹ The only thing "talent" gets you is speed of acquisition, because visual art is 100% a learned skill. And this holds true for every creative endeavor. The only difference between making good art and saying "I tried and I could never..." is that the former kept going. Everyone starts bad. Everyone has to learn and improve.And that, more than anything, is what infuriates me about AI. Even if it weren't objectively bad for literally every other reason, it enables this mindset that creativity is this utterly valueless thing hoarded by those of us born to be great at it. The mindset of "my neighbor's kid could make this for twenty bucks." The mindset of "I'll pay you in exposure." Of "I did the hard part of coming up with the idea, now all you have to do is write the novel." Of "why pay [a fair wage for a skilled artist] when we could just generate this with AI?"
¹ No really, everyone. My partner has aphantasia, the inability to visualize objects in her mind, and I've seen her paint from reference, give cogent feedback on my work, and demonstrate a clear understanding of form and space in games like The Sims and Minecraft where the visualization is largely offloaded to the game world. She's really good at art, despite a limitation that most people would say should make it impossible. Everyone.
@SymTrkl so so much this! As a writer, I hear ‘I could never’ a lot and it makes me sad. Everyone can use words, everyone has stories they can tell. The biggest differences between them and me are practice, and a drive to do it.
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
