@prologic@twtxt.net Let’s go through it one by one. Here’s a wall of text that took me over 1.5 hours to write.

This section says AI should not be treated as an authority. This is actually just what I said, except the AI phrased/framed it like it was a counter-argument.

The AI also said that users must develop “AI literacy”, again phrasing/framing it like a counter-argument. Well, that is also just what I said. I said you should treat AI output like a random blog and you should verify the sources, yadda yadda. That is “AI literacy”, isn’t it?

My text went one step further, though: I said that when you take this requirement of “AI literacy” into account, you basically end up with a fancy search engine, with extra overhead that costs time. The AI missed/ignored this in its reply.

Okay, so, the AI also said that you should use AI tools just for drafting and brainstorming. Granted, a very rough draft of something will probably be doable. But then you have to diligently verify every little detail of this draft – okay, fine, a draft is a draft, it’s fine if it contains errors. The thing is, though, that you really must do this verification. And I claim that many people will not do it, because AI outputs look sooooo convincing, they don’t feel like a draft that needs editing.

Can you, as an expert, still use an AI draft as a basis/foundation? Yeah, probably. But here’s the kicker: You did not create that draft. You were not involved in the “thought process” behind it. When you, a human being, make a draft, you often think something like: “Okay, I want to draw a picture of a landscape and there’s going to be a little house, but for now, I’ll just put in a rough sketch of the house and add the details later.” You are aware of what you left out. When the AI did the draft, you are not aware of what’s missing – even more so when every AI output already looks like a final product. For me, personally, this makes it much harder and slower to verify such a draft, and I mentioned this in my text.

You, @prologic@twtxt.net, also mentioned this in your car tyre example.

In my text, I gave two analogies: The gym analogy and the Google Translate analogy. Your car tyre example falls in the same category, but Gemini’s calculator example is different (and, again, gaslight-y, see below).

What I meant in my text: A person wants to be a programmer. To me, a programmer is a person who writes code, understands code, maintains code, writes documentation, and so on. In your example, a person who changes a car tyre would be a mechanic. Now, if you use AI to write the code and documentation for you, are you still a programmer? If you have no understanding of said code, are you a programmer? A person who does not know how to change a car tyre, is that still a mechanic?

No, you’re something else. You should not be hired as a programmer or a mechanic.

Yes, that is “skill evolution” – which is pretty much my point! But the AI framed it like a counter-argument. It didn’t understand my text.

(But what if that’s our future? What if all programming will look like that in some years? I claim: It’s not possible. If you don’t know how to program, then you don’t know how to read/understand code written by an AI. You are something else, but you’re not a programmer. It might be valid to be something else – but that wasn’t my point, my point was that you’re not a bloody programmer.)

Gemini’s calculator example is garbage, I think. Crunching numbers and doing mathematics (i.e., “complex problem-solving”) are two different things. Just because you now have a calculator, doesn’t mean it’ll free you up to do mathematical proofs or whatever.

What would have worked is this: Let’s say you’re an accountant and you sum up spendings. Without a calculator, this takes a lot of time and is error prone. But when you have one, you can work faster. But once again, there’s a little gaslight-y detail: A calculator is correct. Yes, it could have “bugs” (hello Intel FDIV), but its design actually properly calculates numbers. AI, on the other hand, does not understand a thing (our current AI, that is), it’s just a statistical model. So, this modified example (“accountant with a calculator”) would actually have to be phrased like this: Suppose there’s an accountant and you give her a magic box that spits out the correct result in, what, I don’t know, 70-90% of the time. The accountant couldn’t rely on this box now, could she? She’d either have to double-check everything or accept possibly wrong results. And that is how I feel like when I work with AI tools.

Gemini has no idea that its calculator example doesn’t make sense. It just spits out some generic “argument” that it picked up on some website.

The AI makes two points here. The first one, I might actually agree with (“bad bot behavior is not the fault of AI itself”).

The second point is, once again, gaslighting, because it is phrased/framed like a counter-argument. It implies that I said something which I didn’t. Like the AI, I said that you would have to adjust the copyright law! At the same time, the AI answer didn’t even question whether it’s okay to break the current law or not. It just said “lol yeah, change the laws”. (I wonder in what way the laws would have to be changed in the AI’s “opinion”, because some of these changes could kill some business opportunities – or the laws would have to have special AI clauses that only benefit the AI techbros. But I digress, that wasn’t part of Gemini’s answer.)

Except for one point, I don’t accept any of Gemini’s “criticism”. It didn’t pick up on lots of details, ignored arguments, and I can just instinctively tell that this thing does not understand anything it wrote (which is correct, it’s just a statistical model).

And it framed everything like a counter-argument, while actually repeating what I said. That’s gaslighting: When Alice says “the sky is blue” and Bob replies with “why do you say the sky is purple?!”

But it sure looks convincing, doesn’t it?

This took so much of my time. I won’t do this again. 😂

Thanks, @thecanine@twtxt.net. It’s completely horizontal, I don’t see any diagonals. Anyway, it’s great art, happy drawing!

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Thanks, glad you like it, but sadly I’m not sure, if there’s still a way, for this particular project, to continue.

Reducing 38 pixels (previous smallest) to 27, inside of a 7x7 square canvas, is a result I’m really happy with. Now it seems I can only shave off single pixels and get a lot worse looking results - to the point it doesn’t even look like my mascot, to me.

There doesn’t seem to be a hard cap for drawing tiny dogs. It’s possible to arrange 5 pixels, in a way someone recognizes them, as some kind of a dog. The record for cats, is currently a single orange pixel: https://youtu.be/gzeK8NKuzmg

The only way to beat that, is either a monitor, with just a single red diode lit, inside one of its pixels, or an image file that’s broken and empty, on purpose.

@prologic@twtxt.net Cool! What program do you use to draw this up?

Just a random drawing

After drawing the bigger canine stickers, I also want to change my profile picture for summer, to something more fluffy, shaded and a bit smug looking.

I sent you my QR code, please respond!

*for context: long ago, there were some complaints, about some of my sitting drawings, where the legs are apart, not using dithering/more shading and one of my favourite artists, made a video, exploring the use of QR codes, in art
P.S.: the code just redirects to my websites

@prologic@twtxt.net @movq@www.uninformativ.de I don’t even think the premise of this makes much sense. If an artist is convinced they cannot compete, with the “AI” learning models, we already have today, they must have some self esteem issues, strange opinion on what the purpose of art is, or just be someone mindlessly redrawing already established things and not be all that good at it.

It might be connected to some typically non-artists assumption, that the more time and effort the artwork took to accomplish, the more artistic it is - this can be further twisted in these peoples minds, into the “more pointless detail = more artistic art” meme. AI often ads pointless and illogical details everywhere, “so it’s obviously better, than the human artist, who drew the original”.

Some people just enjoy having the picture they wanted or having the status of an artist to brag about and don’t actually enjoy the artistic process of discovery and small decisions, made while drawing, that shape the outcome into something, only you could have created.

Thanks to @kat@yarn.girlonthemoon.xyz and her shelf I finally spent several hours in the woodshop. I wanted to build two drawers for the workbench and thought that I will complete this project in no time. I’ve been so wrong again. ;-)

I didn’t draw any plans, just measured a few times and then went to cutting a bunch of particle board leftovers at the table saw. I routed rebates on the sides, fronts and backs to lap the boxes and sink in the bottom. It turned out that having no plans was a stupid idea. I cut exactly on the lines as I calculated and measured, however, the math in my head fell apart when it eventually met reality. The bottoms are too short, so I gotta glue on some strips. Also, with the longer fronts, the sides won’t work either, I have to fix them as well. :-D

Finally, the lid of my cyclone bucket broke when the negative pressure got too large. Oh well. It was just an old wood glue bucket, I’ve got another empty one, so I can use that lid but strengthen it first with some plywood. Something for future Lyse to deal with.

All in all, it was still good fun. Wood (haha) do it again, but at least with some sketches on paper. ;-)

Can you automate the drawing with a script? On X11, you can:

#!/bin/sh

# Position the pointer at the center of the dot, then run this script.

sleep 1

start=$(xdotool getmouselocation --shell)
eval $start

r=400
steps=100
down=0

for step in $(seq $((steps + 1)) )
do
    # pi = 4 * atan(1)
    new_x=$(printf '%s + %s * c(%s / %s * 2 * (4 * a(1)))\n' $X $r $step $steps | bc -l)
    new_y=$(printf '%s + %s * s(%s / %s * 2 * (4 * a(1)))\n' $Y $r $step $steps | bc -l)

    xte "mousemove ${new_x%%.*} ${new_y%%.*}"
    if ! (( down ))
    then
        xte 'mousedown 1'
        down=1
    fi
done

xte 'mouseup 1'
xte "mousemove $X $Y"

Interestingly, you can abuse the scoring system (not manually, only with a script). Since the mouse jumps to the locations along the circle, you can just use very few steps and still get a great score because every step you make is very accurate – but the result looks funny:

🥴

Abusing DuckDB-WASM by making SQL draw 3D graphics (Sort Of)
Comments ⌘ Read more

TikZJax: Embedding LaTeX Drawings in HTML
Comments ⌘ Read more

One article assigning a draw of 20 watts to the human brain.

GPT-4o draws itself as a consistent type of guy
Comments ⌘ Read more

@eapl.me@eapl.me @bender@twtxt.net @prologic@twtxt.net Not including a photo was a stupid move, sorry. There you go:

This particular one is 95mm wide and 185mm high. Fairly compact.

I can only use it figure out distances to other dates and to do some basic calendar math. I’m not able to actually schedule anything. But I grew up with a month calendar like you have there where all appointments of the entire family was recorded.

By far most of my paper use is drawing random stuff on scratch paper during meetings. :-D

I spent this Monday afternoon back from work, drawing myself as the “you made it to Friday sailors” dog. Totally unrelated to the 3 hours wasted on meetings, pretending to discuss great suggestions from high management, nobody else wants to implement.
Link to OG meme: https://youtu.be/z8x3JS7pP14

KDE Plasma 6.3 brings drawing tablet improvements
Speaking of KDE, Plasma 6.3 has been released. It brings with it a ton of improvements aimed at digital artists, such as much improved management and configuration of drawing tablets. You can now map an area of the tablet’s surface to a part of the screen, change the functions of stylus buttons, customise the pressure curve and range of a stylus, and much more. The entire settings panel for drawing tablets has also been redesigned t … ⌘ Read more

The impossible happened, and I actually drew something, second month in a row. Wanted to try drawing him standing, with some semblance of correct anatomy, without heavily referencing someone elses drawing, bring back the collar, darker “hair” and separate every different color, with a black line - for some kind of a more simplified look.

@aelaraji@aelaraji.com Thank you very much, glad you like it. :-) I always try to make web pages use as much semantic tags as possible and keep the HTML very simple, so that they also have a chance to look decent in terminal browsers. The logo took me a few hours to draw in all its three sizes.

i fucking love tux paint it’s so cute i wish i could draw

Thank you @bender@twtxt.net and @movq@www.uninformativ.de!

I partially fixed the code block rendering. With some terrible hacks, though. :-( I see that empty lines in code block still need some more work. There are also some other cases around line continuation where the result looks ugly. I have to refactor some parts to make this go more smoothly and do this properly. No way around that.

Turns out, my current message text parser does not even parse plain links. That’s next on the agenda.

Oh, I also noticed that this thing crashes when there is not enough space to actually draw stuff. No shortage of work. Anyway, time is up, good night. :-)

Pascal’s Wager Triangle
⌘ Read more

@prologic@twtxt.net I normally use gimp, but this project is pretty intense: https://orama-interactive.itch.io/pixelorama

for simple and quick drawings my kids use https://pixelart.com

Tick Marks
⌘ Read more

Somewhere I read that changing location, like entering a room, can rejigger neural pathways so that some thoughts and memories are somehow associated with the space. It’s the same for me when picking up a laptop. My purpose feels clear until I open a blank web browser window and my mind goes blank, too. In all the moments where I’m drawing a total blank, and then suddenly the thoughts come easily again: maybe that’s my brain looking for the room it was in before.

It’s cold outside. All is quiet, my lady is working, my daughter is sleeping, my son is drawing. Hot coffee and let’s #nethack!

Today’s Advent of Code puzzle was rather easy (luckily), so I spent the day doing two other things:

• Explore VGA a bit: How to draw pixels on DOS all by yourself without a library in graphics mode 12h?
  
• Explose XMS a bit: How can I use more than 640 kB / 1 MB on DOS?
  

Both are … quite awkward. 😬 For VGA, I’ll stick to using the Borland Graphics Interface for now. Mode 13h is great, all pixels are directly addressable – but it’s only 320x200. Mode 12h (640 x 480 with 16 colors) is pretty horrible to use with all the planes and what not.

As per this spec, I’ve written a small XMS example that uses 32 MB of memory:

https://movq.de/v/9ed329b401/xms.c

It works, but it appears the only way to make use of this memory is to copy data back and forth between conventional memory and extended memory. I don’t know how useful that is going to be. 🤔 But at least I know how it works now.

going thru my own old drawings, exploring those distant worlds, like an archaeologist. tracing origins and evolutions #draw #art #trip #mind

funny how looking at someone’s sketchbook might very well be like looking at an entire hidden world #art #draw #trip #phyilosophy

@prologic@twtxt.net hmm, dunno about the recency of that line of thought. I suspect though that given his (recent or not) history, if someone directly asked him “do you support rape” he would not say “no”, he’d go on one of these rambling answers about property crime like he did in the video. Maybe I’m mind poisoned by being around academics my whole career, but that way of talking is how an academic gives you an answer they know will be unpopular. PhD = Piled Higher And Deeper, after all right? In other words, if he doesn’t say “no” right away, he’s saying “yes”, except with so many words there’s some uncertainty about whether he actually meant yes. And he damn well knows that, and that’s why I give him no slack.

There are people in academia who believe adult men should be able to have sex with children, legally, too. They use the same manner of talking about it that Peterson uses. We need to stop tolerating this, and draw hard red lines. No, that’s bad, no matter how many words you use to say it. No, don’t express doubts about it, because that provides justification and talking points to the people who actually carry out the acts.

Started with

a concept sketch of a full body end-time factory worker on a distant planet, cyberpunk light brown suite, (badass), looking up at the viewer, 2d, line drawing, (pencil sketch:0.3), (caricature:0.2), watercolor city sketch,
Negative prompt: EasyNegativ, bad-hands-5, 3d, photo, naked, sexy, disproportionate, ugly
Steps: 20, Sampler: Euler a, CFG scale: 7, Seed: 2479087078, Face restoration: GFPGAN, Size: 512x768, Model hash: 2ee2a2bf90, Model: mimic_v10, Denoising strength: 0.7, Hires upscale: 1.5, Hires upscaler: Latent

Data Quality
⌘ Read more

I wrote a ‘banner’-like program for Plan 9 (and p9p) that uses the Unicode box drawing characters: http://txtpunk.com/banner/index.html