Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Epstein IM – Talk to Epstein clone in iMessage

epstein.im

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 57 posts

Re: Show HN: Epstein IM – Talk to Epstein clone in iMessage

#31

Post by krapp »

maxbond wrote: post #15

I am hesitant to shoot down anyone's work in Show HN but this is deliberate obscenity in service of (I assume) rage baiting. It's all well for art to be transgressive and offensive but if it's not in service of a goal remotely worth having then it's juvenile. Breathing life into a vile monster who remains a contentious subject is just gross and not worth publishing. OP, I think your work on integrating with iMessage…

>Breathing life into a vile monster who remains a contentious subject is just gross and not worth publishing.

No, it is absolutely worth publishing, because that's exactly what AI does.

People already model celebrities and their dead children with it, and they have deeper and more intimate relationships with it than with any real person. People already allow AI to form their reality. The human "soul" (however one wants to think of it) is already a commodity. And the entire Epstein affair is already a circus. It's just another memeplex. That's the world we live in now. Sure, let's have an Epstein app. Why the fuck not? Why pretend we're serious people living in a serious society where Epstein's crimes have serious consequences?

It's art because it reflects the nature of reality.

Re: Show HN: Epstein IM – Talk to Epstein clone in iMessage

#32

Post by throwaway314155 »

soulofmischief wrote: post #11
undeveloper wrote: post #4

what's the point of this? at least the jmail suite was based in real facts and documents. is this just for lolz? strange behavior.

What's wrong with lulz?

Well there were victims and they're still around so...

A joke isn't funny if you're "punching down"

Re: Show HN: Epstein IM – Talk to Epstein clone in iMessage

#33

Post by maxbond »

rdiddly wrote: post #29
maxbond wrote: post #15

I am hesitant to shoot down anyone's work in Show HN but this is deliberate obscenity in service of (I assume) rage baiting. It's all well for art to be transgressive and offensive but if it's not in service of a goal remotely worth having then it's juvenile. Breathing life into a vile monster who remains a contentious subject is just gross and not worth publishing. OP, I think your work on integrating with iMessage…

You simply don't know what the goal was. I would think that breathing life into a vile monster would, among other things, tend to make his monsterism more obvious to observers, and perhaps elicit responses exactly like yours. For all you know, maybe that was the goal. (I'm entertaining your whole "goal" rubric for a minute, but since you brought it up in the context of art, I don't feel comfortable with the idea that…

> For all you know, maybe that was the goal.

That's my interpretation, yes - it's rage bait. It was meant to be upsetting in a vacuous, meritless way (with all due respect to OP).

> Not knowing someone's motivations, and making up something to fill the blank, leads to errors, ...

I'll hazard that. I'm interpreting the art. I'm open to hearing a different interpretation. I'm open to hearing OP's objections to my interpretation (should they have any). I'm not open to the idea that we simply can't analyze or interpret.

I'm not simply "making something up." I gathered what evidence I could find (eg I read OP's comment history), I thought about the piece, I reasoned my way to a conclusion, and I went through several drafts of my comment to remove any swipes and hone my criticism. Could I be wrong? Sure. Again, I will hazard that. I pondered this already and decided I would rather be wrong than silent.

> ...thinking it would be OK to run over the stupid asshole since they're obviously some other species that is too dumb to protect itself...

Wild, wild leap. This is not remotely the same reasoning I am employing. This is just a slippery slope fallacy. I'm not in danger of dehumanizing and murdering someone because I told someone exactly why I didn't like their art. I went out of my way to be respectful. If someone didn't like my work I would want to hear it and I would want it to be expressed respectfully and without malice. So that is what I did.

To be frank, I think you should reread your comment and consider if it is not you that is imputing my motives in a shallow manner.

Re: Show HN: Epstein IM – Talk to Epstein clone in iMessage

#35

Post by maxbond »

krapp wrote: post #31
maxbond wrote: post #15

I am hesitant to shoot down anyone's work in Show HN but this is deliberate obscenity in service of (I assume) rage baiting. It's all well for art to be transgressive and offensive but if it's not in service of a goal remotely worth having then it's juvenile. Breathing life into a vile monster who remains a contentious subject is just gross and not worth publishing. OP, I think your work on integrating with iMessage…

>Breathing life into a vile monster who remains a contentious subject is just gross and not worth publishing. No, it is absolutely worth publishing, because that's exactly what AI does. People already model celebrities and their dead children with it, and they have deeper and more intimate relationships with it than with any real person. People already allow AI to form their reality. The human "soul" (however one wan…

> It's art because it reflects the nature of reality.

On this we agree. It's art I didn't like, but it's art.

Re: Show HN: Epstein IM – Talk to Epstein clone in iMessage

#38

Post by rdiddly »

maxbond wrote: post #33
rdiddly wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You simply don't know what the goal was. I would think that breathing life into a vile monster would, among other things, tend to make his monsterism more obvious to observers, and perhaps elicit responses exactly like yours. For all you know, maybe that was the goal. (I'm entertaining your whole "goal" rubric for a minute, but since you brought it up in the context of art, I don't feel comfortable with the idea that…

> For all you know, maybe that was the goal. That's my interpretation, yes - it's rage bait. It was meant to be upsetting in a vacuous, meritless way (with all due respect to OP). > Not knowing someone's motivations, and making up something to fill the blank, leads to errors, ... I'll hazard that. I'm interpreting the art. I'm open to hearing a different interpretation. I'm open to hearing OP's objections to my inter…

Look up the word allegory. You're not a character in the allegory.

Re: Show HN: Epstein IM – Talk to Epstein clone in iMessage

#40

Post by userbinator »

b00ty4breakfast wrote: post #23

We could be building chatbot clones of Cicero or Samuel Pepys or even an asshole-genius like Feynman. But that's all too good for us, we don't deserve goo things; we get dead pedophile bankers instead.

I think the absurdity is the whole point.
Post reply on HN