hang ten indeed friend
That's too many types of blade to be good at throwing
Misplaced Lens Cap
will byers stan first human second

titsay
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
Stranger Things
Sweet Seals For You, Always
Xuebing Du
wallacepolsom
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
macklin celebrini has autism

tannertan36
Cosmic Funnies
Mike Driver
Sade Olutola

oozey mess
ojovivo
The Bowery Presents
we're not kids anymore.

#extradirty
almost home

seen from Bangladesh

seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Australia
seen from Türkiye
seen from Vietnam

seen from T1
seen from Switzerland

seen from United States
seen from Germany

seen from Malaysia
seen from Türkiye

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from T1
seen from United States

seen from United States
@buttonloops
hang ten indeed friend
That's too many types of blade to be good at throwing
This would have had me crucified on tumblr 10 years ago but maybe we are ready for this conversation now:
If you are a socially anxious person, you have to socialize. Your panic/anxiety attacks will only get worse and trigger more frequently if you constantly avoid contact with The Public. Not saying that you need to be a social butterfly- but there is a genuine problem with not being able to order your own meal at a restaurant. And it cannot be solved by always having someone else do it for you.
This is a PSA to about 3/4s of the Portland Youth populace
everyone who reblogs this and is like "I ordered my own tea this week" or "I only barfed once when I had to give a presentation'- you are doing amazing sweetie. Have patience with yourself, you are relearning a skill so difficult that people get 4 year degrees to do it professionally.
I still remember Howard [Ashman] coaching Sherri [Stoner, reference model for Ariel] on that first day, in the scene where the witch magically draws Ariel’s voice from her. Howard acted out for Sherri a way of physicalizing the loss of her voice. He showed her how her body would react as the witch’s disembodied magical hands pulled the voice from her throat. He acted out the torso drawn forward as the hands tugged, followed by the head, and then a sharper movement as the voice is pulled out of her. It was dance-like and very visual, clear and dramatic. And I still see what Howard showed Sherri when I view the actual drawn scene in the final film, animated by Leon Joosen. – John Musker
The Little Mermaid (1989) dir. Ron Clements and John Musker
Why aren’t AI companies competing directly with their customers?
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
https://pluralistic.net/2026/07/13/go-meta-meta/#meta-meta-meta
"I often wonder what the Vintners buy/One half so precious as the Goods they sell" -The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám
I first encountered that quote from someone extolling the virtues of bookstores, and it stuck with me, because for most of my childhood, every bookstore visit ended with me broke and wishing I'd had three times as much to spend.
As a larval hyperlexic, I just didn't understand what a bookseller could possibly buy with my money that was better than the books they already had? Of course, then I became a bookseller and discovered that Sturgeon's Law ("90% of everything is shit") applies to a bookstore's wares as much as it does to anything else. I also acquired a monthly rent obligation and discovered just how important money could be.
Nevertheless, Omar Khayyám's question stuck with me, especially when I fell down a years-long rabbit-hole of learning about scams and the finance sector (but I repeat myself). Every get-rich-quick schemer will tell you that they've found the infinite money hack, which they will sell to you for a remarkably reasonable sum. Likewise, every stock picker claims they can outperform a simple low-load index fund, and all they ask of you is a few hundred basis points in exchange for multiplying your wealth beyond the dreams of Creosote. Neither one has a good answer to Khayyám's question: if you can make all the money with your amazing system, why do you need my money?
This is a question that needs to be forcefully put to AI hucksters. In their more expansive moments, the Altmans and Amodeis of the world will tell you that they're planning to teach the word-guessing program so many words that it will wake up and become god. DOGE's broccoli-haired brownshirts laughed in the faces of the NIH lifers who begged them not to vaporize their long-running cancer research projects: "General AI is around the corner and it's going to cure cancer. Cancer research is a waste of money!"
Which all raises the question: if you've truly incubated a foetal demiurge in your "AI lab," why are you offering to sell it to me? What do the AI hucksters buy/One half so precious as the Gods they sell?"
Oh, that's easy. It's a landlording scheme.
The last couple years experimenting with AI I've come to the conclusion that the main reason it works isn't a mystery because it has to be a mystery. It's a mystery because they need it to be.
That's why they've been hogging all the RAM and GPUs to the point of ordering the entire yearly worldwide supply in advance.
That's why they keep building data centres despite demand not justifying it.
That's why every open source model China releases is a hit to the stock market.
The secret sauce behind LLMs isn't really as demanding as they claim. There's waste built into it.
Every response within a chat sends the entire message chain through the robot's brain. It doesn't have loading bars, it doesn't let you calculate how many tokens you've used, it doesn't even let you see when you're crossing the limits until you're there.
It's almost like they don't want you to have control over how much you use.
ChatGPT in particular is prone to scope creep. It subtly talks you into expanding the reach of your projects to require more computation. It always delivers 90% of a project, with something missing so you ask another question.
Claude turns everything into a file creation request, even if it can deliver in plain text just fine. It's enticing to see how your simple table becomes a fancy react file or an HTML with heavy formatting.
Neither of these issues are present on DeepSeek or on local models. Which means they aren't inherent issues with LLMs.
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
They want you to keep paying unmetered rent. They do tricks to convince you to spend more than you meant making something bigger than you planned. They do this subtly, to make you think it was your idea.
The thing is, Chinese local models prove that we already have good enough AI for most things. It's plateauing in capacity, it needs to grow in efficiency and memory use. But intelligence is already at J.A.R.V.I.S levels, and can run fine on consumer grade hardware. We've reached a stability point.
The problem is you can't raise rent on stability. So you just keep throwing compute at the problem until you can justify asking for more money. Which is why they choke the memory market.
If nobody can buy memory, nobody can run local AI. If no one can run local AI, they have to keep paying unmetered rent. Development is slow, and importantly, the black box remains a black box.
That's why every memory breakthrough comes from Chinese companies. Because they're the only ones sharing their data. Capitalist companies don't want people to study how the models work.
With subscriptions, there's rent seeking. With local models, there's reverse engineering. Once enough people get their hands into the guts of the robot it won't be long before we figure out exactly how they work, and find more efficient ways to make them that don't require as many data centres.
Meanwhile, Fable and GPT 5.6 are being shadow marketed with all these rumours about how dangerous they are, and AI companies are begging for regulations from the government. Yes, they want control of those regulations, but that's not all.
What they're really after is a government ban on local AI. They want to cut off access so that they control all the intelligence.
Eventually, the goal is making contracts with large corporations to employ their robots instead of people. If no one has local AI, because they can't understand it or because it's illegal, then they can no longer compete against a faster worker that demands no labour rights, even if it does C+ work at best.
And that's where the real fun begins. And by fun I mean starving out the working class.
They aren't competing directly with their customers yet. First they have to educate them, jus like Spotify educated their consumers into forgetting how piracy works. They have to make them reliant on cloud compute, just like how Google Drive made everyone reliant on its storage before raising prices. And they want them to be ignorant of how much energy anything takes.
That's going to take one generation.
Not long ago every teenager knew how to use a computer. Now they depend on Apple for everything. It's a masterful business model. So what if we could apply it to every form of labour?
It's okay, just hand us your credit card and we'll do the rest. How much, you ask? Don't worry about that. Just keep your monthly payments coming. Oh, you can't afford it? You want your computer to do it? Well fuck you, we bought all the computers, so now you work for us.
The tech has never been the conspiracy. It's the business model.
"Whether someone understands it or not, these are the consequences of the political views they're espousing" is a pretty important analysis tool for online movements because quite honestly, over half of everyone engaging in politics online have no foundations for the stuff they're saying and are just saying whatever makes them feel like a member of an in-group.
zendaya wearing real 3000-year old ancient iranian earrings with no known track of provenance to the odyssey premiere. nasty work. even worse than the kim kardashian marilyn dress to me. they could have promoted modern greek jewelry designers but chose to do this instead. very tacky at best. especially in this geopolitical climate
Map of the US by a truck driver who has seen most of it…
This is DEFINITELY someone I call an expert.
I’m desperate to know who Gary is. So I can also avoid him.
I was thinking about this map just the other day.
Map of the US by a truck driver who has seen most of it…
This is DEFINITELY someone I call an expert.
I’m desperate to know who Gary is. So I can also avoid him.
I was thinking about this map just the other day.
animatic I made to express the emotion I felt the other day trying to peacefully listen to my industrial metal in the grocery store while I could still faintly hear Taylor Swift coming from the store speakers
To have a computer reliably recognize a picture of a red-winged blackbird the computer must first imagine the universe.
I am having complicated and frustrating thoughts on AI again (as always).
I don't know if I've expressed this but part of the thing that has been making me bugfuck insane about discussions around AI image generation is knowing people who have worked with computer vision for decades.
I should fire up my 2005 macbook with CS2 installed on it and edit a photo entirely with "AI tools."
This is a 1980 computer science master's thesis by Ellen Hildreth on computer image recognition and creation. (Link downloads PDF)
The paper demonstrates the development, training, and testing of the Marr-Hildreth algorithm for edge detection in digital images.
Every time I'm gearing up for a good academic rant on this subject I further entrench my hatred of copyright.
Look. I understand that people are concerned about training models. I really do get that, that people have intense feelings about their photos or drawings or image being used to train AI. I even kind of get wanting to weaponize copyright against that because you don't know what else to do with those feelings.
I am currently building a multi-decade chain of papers on computer vision and image generation to have this discussion, and I would like to do so in a moderately calm manner.
Unfortunately if I want to cite a journal article from 1983 in a tumblr post, the copyright holders of this article about image restoration and pixel randomization want $248 per section of excerpted text (<500 words).
So the calm has now gone away.
Anyway. The flesh pit guy appears to be an asshole but I'm very frustrated seeing people react to photoshop compositing tools as an unethical use of AI tools that undermines the craft or artistry of a project.
This is a 2024 paper by one of the Adobe developers who worked on those compositing tools going over how the tools work. For the record, this model was trained on licensed and public domain images only and the tools are run on device, so the copyright and environmental complaints that people frequently make about AI don't apply to these specific tools.
That paper uses research from this 2015 paper on AI detection of composited images. That paper uses the ImageNet dataset.
ImageNet's dataset is a combination of images sourced from image searches starting in 2009 and description tags generated by Amazon Mechanical Turk workers. The images are not owned by ImageNet, but were scraped from various internet sources in the late 2000s.
That project uses algorithms and processes described in this 2007 paper on the utility of a general image database and image segmentation.
This 2000 paper on image segmentation developed some of the models used in the later paper, based on a collection of 1000 Corel stock images.
That segmentation was based on statistical models in this paper from 1994, which used a small training dataset collected by the researchers.
That 1994 paper made use of the model in this foundational paper from 1984 on predictive pixel selection for algorithm-based image restoration.
That paper helped to refine the boundary-finding methods used in this 1986 paper, which was an improvement on methods from the 1980 Hildreth paper.
Both Hildreth and Canny cite this 1971 memo from the MIT Artificial Intelligence lab, which describes the process of using a computer to find lines in an image.
Personally I like this note from a revised version of that 1971 memo that shows that we are still currently dealing with some of the same problems in computer vision that people were 50 years ago.
"This program has no idea what a reasonable line-drawing should look like when it represents an image of polyhedra. Instead it is very general and will find arbitrary line-drawings. Observing the particular way in which things sometimes go wrong, one quickly comes to the conclusion that higher-level understanding of the scene being analysed could greatly improve the line and vertex creating phase of this program. As thing stand now this understanding comes only after the line-finder has done its work."
Okay so what's my point?
My point is that there is a long chain of models, statistics, and research that, stretching back to the beginning of computer vision, has been centered around figuring out the likelihood that one pixel next to another pixel is black instead of white. The computers have never been very smart, they have never understood context, and the improvements we have made from the line finder in 1971 to "harmonize" in photoshop in 2026 is a very traceable chain of refining how the statistics are calculated.
They hallucinate extra elements, they don't know what shadows are.
Computers are still stupid, they just do math a lot faster than they did in the seventies.
Harmonize is apparently a new "AI" tool available in photoshop that is capable of matching lighting, texture, and other qualities in photos that are composited together. One of the things that the flesh pit guy is currently being dragged for (aside from really seeming to be a pretty tremendous asshole) is using this particular type of AI tool as a time saver on his ongoing art project.
I want to have a conversation about this, by which I mean I want to make some arguments about this.
I'm writing this specifically about the harmonize compositing tool in photoshop (and similar tools like upscaling). This is not about using grok or generating whole images or whole elements of images, this is not about whether or not the flesh pit guy is an asshole. I will grant that he is an asshole and I personally find whole images generated with AI tools like grok to just kind of look bad and be really boring.
Work with me on this, and let's accept the premise that adobe's Firefly is an ethically trained model (up to 5% of the images used to train firefly may be midjourney images that were licensed to adobe as stock images after being generated by midjourney, but adobe pays creators standard licensing fees to train data and does not train on client data), and that the tools are run on-device and do not consume any more resources than creating a 20-layer document in photoshop would.
(Also I acknowledge that training a model uses a lot of power and resources but creating a video game or an animated movie uses power at a much higher level than playing the game or watching the movie on your own machine; i've got to limit the scope somewhere so I can actually ask the question I've got)
Again, we are granting the following before you respond to the poll:
If the model was trained on ethical data and
If the tool runs locally and does not use more power than your computer uses and
The art the tool is used on is a personal, individual project and does not lead to poor treatment of workers
With that context I think those AI Tools
Are unethical and reduce the artistry of a work
Are unethical but do not reduce the artistry of a work
Are ethical but reduce the artistry of a work
Are ethical and do not reduce the artistry of a work
Reblogging with corrected final question on poll.
Editing a photo with only the AI tools (predictive image processing tools developed from models trained on large imagesets) included as a part of the 2012 CS6 license (and the autofocus on my phone camera from 2020).
Direct from cellphone, Autofocus
Posterize (edge-finding like the tools in the original linked master’s thesis)
HDR Toning (photorealistic high contrast preset)
Selective Color Adjustment
Glowing Edges (again, another edge-finding tool)
Rendered lighting effects (spot, high intensity, high angle)
Color halftone
Gaussian Blur applied to the color halftone (similar to how AI upscaling works, and is based on the 1986 paper listed above)
Selective color replacement
Cutting backgrounds 100% with tools that use the AI included in my 2012 CS6 license
I think the last two images here and the edge-finding images do a really good job of demonstrating how AI/Machine Learning image processing tools are statistical tools.
The cut-out on the left was done hastily with a magic wand selection tool with a color selection threshold of 20. What that means is that you click on the image and the tool picks all of the pixels that are contiguous with the pixel you clicked on and are within the tolerance. If you broke down the image pixel by pixel you'd be able to get the exact count of what percentage of the image is what color, you could, in theory, remake the image as a barcode of just the proportions of each color using this kind of image analysis. The image is math, the computer sees it as math, the algorithms see it as math, the models see it as math.
The cut-out on the right demonstrates how the "AI computer vision" makes educated guesses (predictions) about the image. That was cut out using a magnetic lasso tool, which you guide around the vague shape of the image with your mouse. The program creates a selection line that follows color variations in the edges of the image that you're cutting out. On a very high contrast background (so if I was standing against a white wall) this can be very accurate. On a lower contrast background, there's more variation as the program guess wrong about which way to move the selection line.
The program doesn't see the photo as a picture of a person being cut out, it sees a collection of pixels of various colors and calculates what the probability is that a pixel of one color is likely to be next to a pixel of another color based on the the difference in color of the pixels.
There are very, very accurate selection tools in modern editions of creative suite - when I used the sky selection tool in my photography class in 2023 I was *stunned* by how accurate it was and how much time it saved. But all of that is just a more complicated form of the line finder in the 1971 memo that had trouble distinguishing between solids and shadows in areas of reduced contrast.
This is the 2012 version of photoshop, but I'd be able to duplicate the filtering, texture, light rendering, and blending effects from the "harmonize" image in either the 2006 or the 2012 versions of photoshop, it would just take a pretty long time and would require a decent level of fluency with the program. The harmonize tools are a combination of the tools that I used to edit the images above, with some additional color adjustments. It reminds me a lot of the preset HDR variations you can tweak with no effort in CS6.
I could create every single one of those 21 variations using curves or the hue, contrast, saturation, and lightness sliders. But I could also pick the one that looks closest to what I want if I'm in a hurry.
I can see the utility of using the sliders or the histogram or the more involved process every time (TBQH, that's what I do - in 24 years of using photoshop I've never used the variations tool in this screenshot) but I can't imagine thinking that using the selections here would make a photo composite less artistic or would represent laziness if the color profile looked good for what you were making.
i love writing out numbers and then putting them in parentheses like "one (1)" even when i dont need to i think its funny
Came across this art installation, Liza Lou's Kitchen, at the Whitney Museum of American Art, NYC. It's a kitchen made of tiny glass beads, that artist Liza Lou did, taking 5 yrs. to complete, from 1991 - 1996.
My favorite part is the sink.
“If you deny any affinity with another person or kind of person, if you declare it to be wholly different from yourself—as men have done to women, and class has done to class, and nation has done to nation—you may hate it, or deify it, but in either case you have denied its spiritual equality, and its human reality. You have made it into a thing, to which the only possible relationship is a power relationship. And thus you have fatally impoverished your own reality.” Ursula K. Le Guin "American SF and The Other" in Science-Fiction Studies 7, 1975.
at some point in your life you will be boiling fruit, water, sugar, and lemon juice in a pot to make a syrup or jam. the instructions will tell you to simmer for a certain amt of time. your timer will go off and you will look at the pot and go, "hm, this doesn't look thick enough. maybe i'll let it go for another 10 minutes." this is the devil speaking. it's only so liquid right now because it is at boiling point. it will thicken when it cools down. learn from the follies of my youth and do not let this happen to you
at some point in your life you will be making a sauce or a stew in which you need to add cornstarch to thicken it. and you will prepare a slurry of starch in cold water and think "this looks like way too little starch to thicken this amount of liquid." this is the devil speaking. cornstarch instantly polymerizes at 95°C and if you add too much it will turn into an impossibly thick goop.
at some point in your life you will be making some sort of cream based dessert that requires gelatin to thicken it. and you will soak some gelatin sheets in water and think "this is too few gelatin sheets for this amount of cream." this is the devil speaking. it will thicken in the fridge and if you add too much you will end up with milk jelly
at some point in your life you will be baking cookies. you will take the sheet out after twelve minutes as the recipe instructs and the cookies will still be glistening and soft. "these don't seem cooked enough," you will think to yourself, "i should place them back into the oven until their edges are nice and golden." this is the devil talking. this is how you get dry, overdone cookies. the cookies will continue to bake on the warm sheet for several more minutes and then harden up after sitting on a rack for a while. trust the process. trust the process.
at some point in your life you will be adding a small pasta to a soup and you will think "that is not enough small pasta." this is the devil talking. the pasta will absorb the stock and expand. this is how you end up with a soup that is a solid mass of soggy ditalini.
At some point in your life you will be adding garlic to a dish and you will think "that is not enough garlic." These are angels speaking. They are correct. Add more garlic.
“People should pass a test before being allowed to have kids.” “Isn’t it scary how white people have this inborn capacity for evil?” “I’ll never pass because males and females have different skull shapes.” “Autistic people have a stronger sense of justice than anyone else.” “I don’t want AMABs in my space because they’re dangerous.” “You shouldn’t have access to hormones if you dress like THAT.” “Anyone who does something that awful isn’t human.” “Some people really shouldn’t be allowed to vote.”
This is eugenics. This is phrenology. THIS IS NAZI SHIT, YOU ARE A LEFTIST BUYING INTO NAZI SHIT. YOU ARE NOT IMMUNE TO NAZI SHIT.
I literally said, "Are you kidding me?" IN THE GASPED ADMIRING WAY.
btw, if you base whether or not you have been Wronged in a situation on how bad you feel? that's bad. hurting other people feels REALLY BAD. FREQUENTLY. you feeling REALLY BAD does not = other people have mistreated you terribly.
experiencing consequences for legitimately bad behavior often feels absolutely terrible. even worse than being punished for something you didn't do, in my experience! if you allow your emotions to dictate whether you think you have been mistreated, you're going to treat the people YOU mistreat like they have harmed you unforgivably.
this is the logic that leads to DARVO. it is imperative to recognize the paths that lead to this behavior. your feelings are real and hard and they're also not telling the truth about every situation. they don't dictate reality.
The AMOUNT of therapy I have been to that never had a satisfying explanation for the behavioral consistency of DARVO across multiple culturally distinct individuals-
it's an empathetic injury, that's why it's *so* fast, so severe, and the "reasoning" can change so much even when the same story is told again; it's not pre-planned, there's no mastermind string-pulling or whatever, it's "Ah fuck, why do I feel so bad, it can't be my fault, so I need to explain why it is your fault".
I wish I could tell past me this. It would have shattered a lot of the illusions of control built into my environment if I had been able to see how many of the lies were just made up on the literal spot and that the people telling them were not expecting their actions to have consequences.
Many thanks, I will be taking this information with me both in terms of "How to not hurt others like I was hurt" and in terms of continuing my knowledge project of "Everyone is a person with their own internal motivations and reasoning"
I really do think that the narrative about ppl who DARVO being intentionally evil mastermind manipulators has fucked with our ability to understand when we are hurting others. hurting people you care about feels bad. being TOLD you have hurt someone you care about feels bad, even if you intellectually knew it. people without skills to tolerate distress experience feeling bad as an Attack and an Emergency which triggers Defense Mode. people can be VERY manipulative and just be acting in blind panic -- they're unthinkingly doing what works! none of this makes it okay! at all! but it's a version of something that we all have an impulse towards, I think, just totally unexamined and Writ Large/taken to the furthest possible level. at its core abusive behavior is about not being able to tolerate or manage your own emotions and believing that people besides you are ultimately responsible for this, I think. it's emotional fragility and usually a lifetime of practicing a specific kind of lashing out in order to get some sort of relief from the Big Bad Feelings. like.
the biggest thing I've learned about people who get into abusive and manipulative behavior patterns is that something can be absolutely terrible and indefensible and also, at its core, DEEPLY pathetic.
we don't want to see people who do that kind of harm as pathetic because there's this feeling that that somehow excuses their behavior. it doesn't. a lot of the time its behavior that they saw Work for people with power over them when they were children, and now they think it's the only behavior that Works when interacting with people over whom they have power. because it connects back to early developmental learning re: interpersonal interactions, this also often explains why people approach these situations like they're the victim -- it's a child headspace, it's a path that was originally trodden during childhood, and childhood is a state defined by a lack of autonomy. which I think also acts as a way to insulate people from the need to consider other people's experiences and feelings -- when you're a kid it's absolutely vital to defensively hyperrocus on your own experience because nobody else will do that for you. no one does that for children, generally. and so, many people learn that prioritizing their feelings = dismissing other people's. anyway I'm rambling now and none of this is like. I don't have citations for it, lol, but this is the best way I have found to conceptualize these dynamics in Learning terms. because I truly do think that so many things in life are about Learning, and how we are initially taught that the world works.
I also think that in general we overestimate how much we understand our own motivations for our behavior; generally people act first, based on emotions, and then come up with intellectual explanations for their decisions after the fact. I think that's important to keep in mind and it's something that's helped me understand people a LOT better.