Why isn’t there more incel violence?

We conclude by offering one hypothesis as to why modern day incels are not as violent as we might expect. The Male Sedation Hypothesis, that online virtual worlds, such as pornography, may pacify the potential for violence among sexless young men, providing a counterfeit sense of sexual fulfillment and reducing motivation for real- life mate competition.

So in other words; in the past such men would have taken their frustration to the streets. Gathering into groups of other such men and causing trouble, kicking grannies and such. Nowdays they instead retreat into their mom’s basements smoking weed, playing video games and watching porn.

Upvoted for being unpopular. I already block people who use emojis here anyway

Once a year is about how often I get sick. Even if wearing a face mask would bring that to zero it still wouldn’t be worth it because dealing with the mask every day is a bigger inconvenience that being sick for a few days a year.

I’ll rather deal with fever once a year than with a mask every day

I do photography and I’ve heard people analyze my work and try and find some meaning, intention or a message that I’m trying to convey with it.

The reality is that I took 150 pictures and that was the one I liked the best. There’s nothing to it for me except how it looks. The fact that I managed to capture that specific photo is hardly anything but an accident. There is no meaning to it and whatever meaning one imagines seeing there is just in their mind. It’s a story you’re telling yourself and you’d come up with a similar story from a piece made by AI that you didn’t realize was such. If it stops being art at the moment you learn it was made by AI but you accept it as art when it was made by human even if it was, in fact, an accident, then that’s exactly the gatekeeping I’m talking about.

Personally I find AI art to look like “AI-art” if that makes sense.

I know what you mean and while I generally agree I must still note that this only applies to the “bad” examples. It’s conceivable that you too have seen pieces you truly liked but didn’t realize were made by AI. This is something people often don’t seem to consider; AI art is only bad untill it isn’t.

Painters can either splash paint on the canvas or spend months working on a photorealistic masterpiece. There’s absolutely a difference in skill needed for both but to claim the former is not art would also be gatekeeping.

That argument also disregards the actual difficulty of crafting the perfect prompt to get the AI to output what you want it to. Anyone can create pictures with it but it’s not trivial to get it to create exactly what you want.

It’s a rather safe assumption. I too like to tell myself a story about how I can always spot fakes but I know it to not be true.

How did they not create anything? They inserted a prompt into the tool and received a picture.

I don’t see how that comparison translates to the topic about AI art.

If AI can create better content than humans can then people will rather consume that. I don’t see why you should artificially limit this. If someone thinks that AI content is not better then that’s who the audience is for the remaining human creators. AI can already create better looking photos than I can, but it has zero effect on my desire to do photography. I don’t see what the issue is.

One who wrote the prompt. It may be the AI that does all the heavy lifting but it’s still a tool and alone it doesn’t create anything.

Human is the one with vision, AI is the tool. It’s just a much more advanced paint brush that anyone can use. Alone it doesn’t create anything and if the end result is bad, it’s not the fault of the brush.

AI art is just an art sub-genre like painting, sculpting or photography is. Saying it’s not art is like a film photographer saying digital is not real photography - gatekeeping.

every AI image i have seen has tells of being AI generated

Except the ones you didn’t realize were made by AI. You by definition can’t know how many have passed for you as “genuine”.

I disagree with the premise that such mosaic of online pictures wouldn’t be “original” piece of art. It absolutely qualifies by my books

That’s a bit cynical take. In many countries, including mine, there are dedicate bins for plastic waste which is the majority of waste from your typical household. It’s all being recycled into new products, not being shipped anywhere. Also, when it comes to plastic bottles for example, close to 100% of them are returned and recycled into new bottles. I’ve got a tiny-ass bin for the stuff that ends up in landfill because I separate and recycle it all as does most other people.

EDIT: Nevermind then. It’s all apparently dumped into the ocean. Sorry about the attempt in some positivity.

I think this logic is a little flawed. Say you’re a well educated and intellectually honest left-wing person who likes a good debate and goes to a place like Truth Social to engage with people that have opposing beliefs. This person is going to receive a ton of hate for their efforts. They’re going to “smell shit” everywhere. Doesn’t still mean they’re wrong.

This applies to Lemmy aswell. Certain topics simply just don’t get a good reception here because of the audience. The experience of using this platform is wildly different to someone who generally aligns with the “activist left” compared to someone whose closer to the centre.

There are users I’ve blocked only due to having username like that. If you’re that desperate to stand out I’ll make sure it has the exact opposite effect.