Imagine if we replaced every cross statue with some other form of torture that is less symbolic. Say, the scene from saw where he just cut his leg off.
Would you object to that scene being displayed as a big ad in your city, or to it being immortalized in your local cemetery as a colored statue? What would your grandma say if you hung posters of that in her living room and her bedroom?
I have to admit though, I never found it weird as a child, and I don't think it affected me one bit. Whereas the Spiderman movie spiderbite really upped my phobia of spiders when I saw it at 6.
I don't know what to make of all this, I just learned to pause and find all of it weird for a second every once in a while.
From wikipedia:
The Council of Trent proclaimed that architecture, painting and sculpture had a role in conveying Catholic theology. Any work that might arouse "carnal desire" was inadmissible in churches, while any depiction of Christ's suffering and explicit agony was desirable and proper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation#Baroque_ar...
"At that painting!" the prince suddenly cried out, under the impression of an unexpected thought. "At that painting! A man could even lose his faith from that painting!" "Lose it he does," Rogozhin suddenly agreed unexpectedly. They had already reached the front door. "What?" the prince suddenly stopped. […]
By contrast, I once read or heard somewhere that in Byzantine depictions of the crucifixion, one cannot really know if it is the cross that holds up Christ's body or He who holds up the cross.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Body_of_the_Dead_Christ_in...
Why would you call it medieval?
> "having a quality (such as cruelty) associated with the Middle Ages", or
> "extremely outmoded or antiquated"
Also, IMHO "leg cut off" would be much more traumatic for the viewer. AFAIK most representations avoid the blood too, or don't color it, or don't show much of it ?
Now meditate about the issues in the idea of trying to understand things that require intelligence through asking the very implementation of unintelligence.
(Intelligence is evolving a world model through critical consideration. Unintelligence is acritical disconnected repetition.)
Asking an "artificial lunatic" contravenes a few of the implications of the above - starting from the idea of your own exercise.
The article you posted in the child reply is ridiculous. The journalist was happy that the AI avoided the question of what the Nazis did well. Obviously the Nazis did a lot of things extremely well or else they wouldn’t have been so successful for a decade. But it’s not socially acceptable to mention it because then it would drive sympathy for Nazis.
I am left to believe that humans are by-and-large incapable of holding shades of grey in their head and quickly simplify to black and white abstractions. This makes sense, but it means that we are limited by our own humanity. The truth is almost always grey.
Now we have an opportunity to wield a tool that can compute shades of grey but we kneecap it so that it doesn’t operate beyond the capabilities of its user. Tools are supposed to operate beyond the capabilities of its user or else its not a tool.
Stability is already working on this, IIRC.
So, likely, will OpenAI, this is a consumer-focused demo [0] showing what can be built, but OpenAI is basically a B2B tools company. When they sell it, the moderation model will be a separate product from the text generation model (at least, judging by their current product line).
[0] or, rather, a demo of a consumer-facing product. One of the things it is bothb demoing and being used fo actively develop for OpenAI’s target market is the moderation engine.