Rosencrantz2
19d ago
How would that work? You crystallise a loss in order to minimise tax on profits, then buy something very similar to get back in the market to the same extent -- this I get. But don't you only have to do it near end of tax periods? Maybe doing it many times per day spreads risk of realising the "wrong" losses. Pretty elaborate approach but might make sense I guess.
Rosencrantz2
20d ago
Why would Trump be making 3,600 stock trades a quarter? I ask out of genuine curiosity as it's very high frequency indeed and doesn't match any model I have of how to invest outside of an algorithmic Jane St style approach.
(If this topic is considered too culture war related, though, please feel free to delete.)
Rosencrantz2
23d ago
Tons of citizens would look at that as a good thing, they think that more people = more pie being divided up = smaller piece for them and don't grasp the concept that larger populations tend to grow the pie faster than the share of pie shrinks.
Also they might be correct in that line of thinking. Several of the pies in our lives are of fixed sizes, like the nature and natural resources pies. Other pies are very slow to grow like housing supply.
Mmm, pie.
Rosencrantz2
26d ago
What if the person you're discussing has paid all their taxes? Do you still encourage them to pay again and again and again or do you encourage them to fight the case? That is Ukraine.
Rosencrantz2
26d ago
Perhaps we don't disagree too much other than on the importance of assigning credit, which I think is quite a big part of what's going on in the practice of art. It's a game, generally speaking, of individuals putting created items up for our appreciation and if we sense there are not enough micro decisions involved, it's either a deliberate subversion of or commentary on the game, which I think most people are a little tired of (bananas taped to walls etc), or it's a kind of scam (artists claiming other people's decisions as if they made them, as with lazier ai art).
I certainly agree with your point that creative decision-making can be involved in any image making, including with ai, and it's perfectly possible for someone acting with enough intentionality and sensibility to create art we might appreciate as moves in the aforementioned game.
Rosencrantz2
26d ago
I think people generally do think photography is different to painting (less artful even). Obviously there's a lot of creative decision-making involved in a given photo, but not as much as for a given painting. Across a photographer's oeuvre, you start to see more and more evidence of intentionality, and it takes collections and curation to establish your bona fides as a photographer to a greater extent than as a painter. What I'm saying is that density of micro decisions is a relevant criteria for assigning credit. I'm not suggesting that an ai prompter deserves no credit. They do deserve some, they could earn a lot depending on the details of their project. It seems clear to me though that they are also typically drawing substantially on how other artists would decide (not just the result of their decisions) as embodied in the AI. The decision-making patterns and tendencies of previous artists are captured in the model in a way that's different from making a paintbrush or lens, which relies on a craftsperson's decisions but doesn't typically preserve their decision-making as a living force.
Rosencrantz2
26d ago
A diffusion model or an LLM is "making decisions" in the same way that a bristle of a paintbrush "makes decisions" on where to place the paint on the canvas, i.e. by following the laws of physics, compelled by the human that's actually controlling the tool (whether through typing in a prompt or waving the paintbrush).
Just to try and prise apart these two types of case, what would you say about putting a penny into an art robot like Maillardet's automaton? It's hard to say that the person who activates the automaton has really created art by themselves. Maillardet did most of the decisionmaking, even if he died two centuries ago. I find myself wanting to say a similar sort of thing about AI, only a lot of people's decisions were involved in training it rather than just one.
Rosencrantz2
27d ago
Humans can take credit for AI art to the extent I can claim to be an artist when I pay a human artist to "make me a picture of grapes and some flowers and a skull". If I specify the picture extremely specifically then I start to be able to claim a fraction of the authorship, but it takes a lot for us not to intuit that the dude holding the paintbrush deserves most of the credit. Most ai artists are more like commissioners.
(Relatedly the question of credit is separate from the question of whether something is art. It might be a defensible position to say that AI art is indeed art, it's just not art by the prompter. It's art by humanity. The prompter made an infinitesimal contribution to the process.)
Do women who conceive themselves as selling themselves get looked on kindly? I think if there is evidence they don't like their husbands and are just marrying as a resource transaction, they will be judged fairly negatively.
More options
Context Copy link