EatATaco

The title says it was created with ai, in the article it calls it "an AI creation."

She's also supposed to be a fashion (or whatever) model, which is what I interpreted them as meaning by "model" in your quote, based on the context of the article. But I can see now why you interpreted it differently.

Although I still feel, based on the title and context, that the use of model in your quote is clearly of the fashion variety, and not the AI model variety.

But it makes no difference to unrealistic beauty standards whether artists alter an existing human body or make one up wholesale.

This is what I'm not so sure about, as in the completely crafted one can do anything at any time with almost zero effort. They don't age. They don't have any imperfections. There's no risk (?) of them ever going off the rails. Even tho the influences project an fake front, you can still be them, as they are real. If something isn't even real, you could create things that could never possibly exist.

I get that this is kind of a joke, but we already have a problem with these models/influencers projecting unrealistic beauty ideals and pretending to lead these unrealistic lives, and it's causing major issues already. If companies can basically craft exactly what they want, I can see it being orders or magnitude worse.

You misread it, unless they changed the wording.

Thanks I'll give it a read.

Do you have something I can read about this? It's a little vague, so hard for me to search, and it sounds like something I would be interested in. Thanks

Also run the risk of missing out on a valuable pirate treasure map.

I'm really just driving home your point here.

I played a lot of clash royale, which I loved, and people always whined about it being ptw. This is because you reach a certain point that is hard to pass with your current card levels, where your win loss ratio goes to 1-1. But what would happen is you would pay some money to upgrade your cards, and then you rise in the ranks a bit, and then right back to being at the point where you are at a 1-1 w/l ratio.

It was really just "pay to do the same thing at a higher rank."

Funny, when I played it, it was always "wow, I'm really getting a good bang for my buck." It was a huge money saving for me because instead of going out to a bar an extra one or two nights a week, I stayed home and gamed online with friends. Never once did I think "I should play to make it worth it" I was making it worth it without a thought. lol

I have two kids. The idea that these games are not addictive is laughable. Something only someone without kids that have found roblox (or similar games) could possibly convince themselves is true. Even just looking at all FTP games I play, I can see how they are taking advantage of that need for the fix to pull money from you at the most opportune time. Lucky for me, I don't really have an addictive personality so I'm easily able to set aside those things.

But my kids have not developed the same level of self control or self-realization yet. They just continually want that dopamine hit. We definitely limit screentime and what they play (roblox is out now). In the times we have done "device free weeks" you can absolutely see the change in behavior from the withdrawal period right after you take away the game, to at the end of the week when they barely even complain at all that they can't play.

I remember when my older kid went away to sleep away camp for 2 weeks, and when he came back how his younger brother talking about the games seemed so foreign to him. He like had completely detoxed and didn't care at all.

There is definitely an element of parental responsibility here too. But you what the author doesn't seem to realize is that it's not so easy. All of the kids are playing games these days, and it is a common past-time. While you could just say "no games" and call it a day, I don't know of a single family that does this. Even the ones who are very strict allow their kids to play some switch games. Even the ones that think their kid has some kind of gaming addiction (and have taken away all online games) let's their kids play certain console games as well because they don't see it creating the same behavior. And if you open the door a bit, it's a constant battle trying to figure out where that line in, and you're competing against big money using experts to figure out how to win that game. It's an extremely hard game for a parent to win.

It would be much easier if it were illegal to use these intentionally addictive mechanisms in games targeted at non-adults.

I can see in that case there being at least mild justification. But this is not what the op is about, it's about a rich American who feels like he is being screwed by Netflix and finds pirating more convenient, so that makes it justified.

It might just be a definition thing, but I doubt it, considering how pretty much every argument I've gone across is implying I said it was wrong. I view it as a neutral thing, but not justified. We're talking about illegally taking luxury things because we don't want to pay the price. If we were talking about no one getting hurt to take something you need, 100% justified. But we are talking about taking something you just want. I have no moral qualms about doing it, but I don't claim to be justified in doing so.

Like I think it would be justified if it were for some piece of software that you really need but can't afford, or would really make your life much easier. But for watching old Seinfeld episodes, or getting a new video game on release, it's not.