There are approximately 3 different human species, if you use the same distance measures that give us dog, wolf, and coyote (which can all interbreed).
The concept of 'species' only exists within the human mind [1]. In nature, there are only slowly accumulating mutations, until two populations become differentiated enough that we arbitrarily assign them different taxa. In fact, that is the central thesis of the aptly-named On the Origin of Species.
[1] And there are plenty of species that we consider distinct, that can and do interbreed and bear fertile offspring.
> The concept of 'species' only exists within the human mind [1].
That's a theory, anyway. Yes, biologists (and presumably botanists and all those who study the other kingdoms) have made errors in judgment, and yes, the current definition is very poor (often broken, sometimes unprovable in a practical sense).
It does not follow, however, that all life exists on some continuous spectrum of mutations. Members of Equus caballus have distinct genetic traits that do not occur in Equus asinus.
The reality we see about us is that life seems to group itself into channels or pools of limited genetic variation. But that variation doesn't mean the channels/pools aren't real.
The quote you are responding to is a reaction to scientific racism. Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you, but you said that you find it amusing that this is still controversial.
> The quote you are responding to is a reaction to scientific racism.
No, it is a reaction to treating humans the same as finches. You give the thing he does a label and then attack the label, instead of attacking the thing itself.
Isolated populations "drift" genetically, which is how species form in the first place. Discriminating against people based on those differences sucks, sure, but it's still the ground truth.
Pretty sure there are genetic clustering algorithms which show that perceived race groups approximately correspond to measured race clusters. For example, random East Asians are more closely related to each other than to random West Europeans.
I think there is some tenuous analog between today's AI, and yesteryear's music synthesizers and "modern art". Regarding music, I understand synthesizers were created to mimic real instruments, whereas artists used its capabilities not to mimic, but to create entirely new sounds. My limited understanding of modern art (and without a search I don't distinguish between expressionism, impressionism or any other isms because of my ignorance of the differences) is that it was a reaction to the modern world, and an expression of something that could not be anything other than a creation of the human mind. AI may be helping people to copy existing aesthetics, but I'm hoping/waiting for it to enable people to take it in a completely novel direction that can only be augmented human expression.
I don’t agree with your music synthesizer analogy. I own a synthesizer, however I don’t possess any musical talent whatsoever. I cannot for the life of me produce anything remotely listenable from the thing. I know how to use it, but cannot make good music. You just need to look at some street performer banging on a plastic bucket and entertaining a circle of people to realise that the ability to make music is orthogonal to having the right tools.
AI art is more like me pressing the demo button on the synth, looking you in the eye as it plays the preset tune and saying “I made this”
Would you scream at a child that shows you a beautiful shell they found on the beach -- "you didn't make that!" -- why assume that everyone's ego is entwined with sharing?
No, because the child is behaving as a curator which is a valuable act. I never hear ai “artists” claim to be curators, they always claim to be creatives.
Photographers were not initially respected as artists -- they are now. The history of this cultural evolution is well documented. It is easier than typing a prompt to take a picture with a smartphone, yet the respect for photography somehow remains. It is definitely a cultural problem.
I'm one of those non-technical users. For the past week or so I've been messing with getting a servarr stack going with a vpn. Mapping a network drive to the host device, configuring the docker images, port forwarding, etc., is all foreign to me and I'm still not sure I understand what port-forwarding is. I used portainer since I like having the GUI. I can just view the dashboard and poke around to explore, rather than staring at a terminal wondering what to do, searching a vague description of the problem, and pasting some cryptic command I find. Instead, I notice the "logs" button and click that.
All that to say that I am interested enough in a Linux machine, but don't feel I have the requisite knowledge to drive one.
>Rappers loved Scarface and mob movies back in the 90s/00s and used to imitate those aesthetics all the time
This has always bothered me, and I don't think it's some subtle aesthetic/ironic/contrarian take either. People who I asked at the time (00s) usually had something to say about him being "self made", or something else similar. Did you (royal you) actually watch the whole movie?
No, that's just going to reinforce that government doesn't work, which justifies starving the beast further. I don't know how one party has so successfully created this feedback loop, where the more they lose, the more they win. I guess its simply that destruction is easier than creation
Abstraction. They can't see how a functioning government benefits them. The only people who need a functioning government, in their mind, are the leeches and welfare queens, not the hard working rugged individuals like them who have never taken a penny in government aid (again abstraction. Tax policy that subsidizes mortgage holders, for example, does not occur to them as a handout. Or social security. It's not a handout because "I paid into it", not considering that they get back more than they contributed).
Makes sense. But why is that? Are they not educated enough to realize it? Or don't they bother to apply their common sense to such topics? Also, where do they get these weird alternative explanations from?
PS: I'm not from the US. What I know is from both mainstream and social media. I'm curious about the fundamental reasons on the ground too.
>where do they get these weird alternative explanations from?
Surely you're aware of cable news in the US, like Fox News, etc. but before that, for about 40 years now[0], AM talk radio has played a huge part in developing this messaging. I grew up with this as my main channel for awareness of current events, hearing about everything that happens through this lens.
I'm not sure if this [1] is accessible outside the US, but give a listen between 3 and 9 pm EST (GMT-5) though certainly not limited to these hours. You'll learn a lot about the American right wing mindset, and how the working and middle class is effectively messaged to. Talk radio is a lot more free form and ephemeral, so you'll hear a lot more improvised and extreme ideas than you would in a TV broadcast. It's quite a spectacle.
I don't know how to square "populism" with the metric asston of propaganda coming from people whose job is literally to know better but instead chose to feed people bad information and amplify stupidity. This ain't grass roots populism...at all.
Obviously getting people hooked on harmful lies was not originally populism. But now it sort of functions like populism. Now it hurts when the lies stop.
I think we've all been the one who got fooled in some relationship. Maybe for you it wasn't a political party. But I bet it still hurt.
It's been a long time since I heard this, but I believe there is recording here [0] of his colleagues forcing themselves into his apartment to have him committed.
>Engineered to suit you, building cheaper thrills
>Music of rebellion makes you wanna rage
>But it's made by millionaires who are nearly twice your age
The Sound of Muzak by Porcupine Tree (2002)
reply