Aside from the other links in comments, any where to read more of this? I need more.
A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber
31–40 of 113 posts
Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
The slop art gave me the wrong impression. I did enjoy the read even thinking it was AI though.
I'm sorry we're getting so off topic here but... I suppose it helps to focus on the core of someone's strength, and the core of the content they are sharing. You could be a great engineer and a great blogger, but have no skill in making graphics. If you made the artistic choice to add AI-generated art to an excellent engineering blog post, I would forgive it -- assuming it wasn't detracting in some important way. Ove…
You're absolutely right! jk. I hate this situation of "everything is slop until proven otherwise" and the author doesn't have to be good at writing and drawing just to share their thoughts. But generally you don't expect a Michelin star level meal after having a turd sandwich entrée. It's just a natural pavlovian response at this point to see slop and expect slop. Totally unfair, I agree, but really hard to get rid of it.
Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber
#33Good. We can move to Bruno Mars now
An Aristotelian Critique of “The Lazy Song”
Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber
#34Neil Hagerty (Royal Trux, Pussy Galore) Talks Justin Bieber’s Purpose
https://talkhouse.com/neil-hagerty-royal-trux-pussy-galore-t...
Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber
#35[stub for offtopicness]
This is AI generated.
Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
The slop art gave me the wrong impression. I did enjoy the read even thinking it was AI though.
It's not an art piece, it's a writing piece. The illustration is just there for support, not the central focus or even the topic of the article. The author is obviously a decent writer, but I don't see how they should be expected to pay an artist for a simple illustration when this article has nothing to do with said illustration. Life isn't black and white, and you'd do yourself a favor by noticing the shades of gra…
I don't think the illustration adds anything, it could simply be left out. I did enjoy the writing.
Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber
#37This 3 minute song creates a fleeting portrait of a man, not necessarily Bieber, who we cannot know. The song captures the mindset of a character who, one might infer, cynically knows what he’s trying to do. It’s possible he has no interest in a heartfelt, meaningful apology. In fact, this character - who lives only within the song and the liminal world it creates - may be operating exactly to his own moral preference. We don’t know enough to say more. It’s like asking if a singer of “happy birthday” truly wishes their subject to be happy.
In short, you Kant analyze pop music with confidence.
Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber
#38[stub for offtopicness]
This is AI generated.
Is it? I couldn’t tell and I’m pretty sensitive to machine generated text.
Also, the author claims:
> No AI was used to generate the text for this article. The cover image and the voiceover in the audio version of the article is AI-generated. The cover image is made using Google Gemini’s latest image model while the voiceover uses OpenAI’s tts models.
Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is AI generated.
Is it? I couldn’t tell and I’m pretty sensitive to machine generated text. Also, the author claims: > No AI was used to generate the text for this article. The cover image and the voiceover in the audio version of the article is AI-generated. The cover image is made using Google Gemini’s latest image model while the voiceover uses OpenAI’s tts models.
I would like, personally, if the image was a stock photo. It being AI feels in poor taste.
Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
The slop art gave me the wrong impression. I did enjoy the read even thinking it was AI though.
It's not an art piece, it's a writing piece. The illustration is just there for support, not the central focus or even the topic of the article. The author is obviously a decent writer, but I don't see how they should be expected to pay an artist for a simple illustration when this article has nothing to do with said illustration. Life isn't black and white, and you'd do yourself a favor by noticing the shades of gra…
They don’t have to pay an artist for the illustration, just use a stock photo (lots of which exist). Or leave it blank (nobody needed an illustration). Having an AI image for filler seems to be in poor taste.