Blemgo

It goes a bit further than just not berating. People often get defensive when you criticise something they like, which makes it harder to argue due to the other side suddenly treating the discussion as a fight. However by saying "it's not for me" in a rather roundabout way you shift the focus away from "is it good/bad" and more about whether the other can empathise with your reasoning, and in turn reflect your view onto themselves and maybe realize that they didn't notice something about their usage and feelings about AI that you already did.

Ah, sorry, I didn't mean ignorant in a general way, but to the critiques on AI/dangers of AI OP referred to in their post. I'll edit my comment.

Maybe trying to be objective is the wrong choice here? After all, it might sound preachy to those who are ignorant to the dangers of AI. Instead, it could be better to stay subjective in hopes to trigger self-reflection.

Here are some arguments I would use for my own personal 'defense':

• I like to do the work by myself because the challenge of doing it by my own is part of the fun, especially when I finally get that 'Eureka!' moment after especially tough ones. When I use AI, it just feels halfhearted because I just handed it to someone else, which doesn't sit right with me.
• when I work without AI, I tend to stumble over things that aren't really relevant to what I'm doing, but are still fun to learn about and might be helpful sometimes else. With AI, I'm way too focused on the end result to even notice that stuff, which makes the work feel even more annoying.
• when I decide to give up or realize I can't be arsed with it, I usually seek out communities or professionals, because that way it's either done professionally or I get a better sense of community, but overall feel like I'm supporting someone. With AI, I don't get that feeling, but rather I only feel either inferior for not coming up with a result as fast as the AI does or frustrated because it either spews out bullshit or doesn't get the point I'm aiming for.

What would be your motivator to pay human artists? Why sign any?

I mean, the internet has given artists a way to spread their works and profit off them without any major record labels. So what artists will lose by that are exploitative companies whose only benefit is that your music will be sold by major retailers as physical CDs or Downloads.

They took the code of Scratch 3 and claim to have made some improvements on it to make it run faster alongside some other improvements (such as rising the maximum framerate to 60 from Scratch's 30). However, there doesn't seem to be any proof that this is the case, so it could perform exactly like Scratch 3 without any improvements.

What is an actual bonus is that this software offers actual installation files, whereas normal Scratch 3 is only available through a browser and by downloading it from the App/Play/Windows store. It's nice to be able to not use these storefronts because a) it means that you have a little more control over the software you use and b) you can use Scratch 3 offline on Linux as well with this.

I just checked it out. Apparently it is a fork of Scratch and supposedly applies some optimisation to it, which I would take with a grain of salt without any benchmarks.

I think the biggest advantage is the proper offline mode, as Scratch 3 doesn't have classic installation files (and therefore no Mac and Linux installations).

Honestly, I stopped reading after

The power creep just got way too out of control for my liking, and while I know that the power creep always existed, I feel like the adventures before showed how you can tell a good story without just brute force. Plus, even with their superhuman abilities, their struggles still felt relatable. And with what happened before and right after the aforementioned turning point, it felt like that would be left in the dust.

It's both funny and sad how they sort of threw around money when they were swimming in it, such as the acquiring of the Valhalla engine, which turned out to only consist of the rendering part of the engine during the buyout, yet at the same time don't seem to be brave enough to try to make something else than Payday 2. Overkill's The Walking Dead was basically a Payday 2 clone, and Payday 3 is the official successor to it, making both fall under the shadow of its still running cash cow. Even their cooperation with Lion Game Lion to make a spiritual successor/spinoff with Raid:WW2 seems harebrained, as it would immediately draw comparisons to PD2, which it could never really overcome.

Honestly, it's odd how they just didn't make Payday 3 a straightforward port of Payday 2 into the Unreal engine and have a smaller side project to keep the creative juices flowing as the player base slowly switches to the new engine.

And even then, editing out unwanted mutations can still stifle society as a whole and may be morally the wrong choice. For example, what about eradicating autism due to the immense pain these individuals receive due to our society? Is it better to change our society to accommodate people afflicted with it or wipe out the genes responsible for it if it is easier? And if we choose the latter, where is the cutoff point? Can we even tell when we crossed that line, where our drive to improve ourselves ended being done out of mercy and began to be about creating the model citizen?

Though this solution also seems to be very flawed, doesn't it? You basically trust another company to manage your child's smartphone and granting it full access to it. Furthermore, that doesn't stop predators, as they could still arrange meetups with their unknowing victims. And even if it captures text messages, kids would be discouraged to use their phone due to their fear of their parents disproving of their friends or their communication to them. Instead, they'd more likely learn the use of "burner phones" by getting a factory-reset phone and using that one instead.

It's the sort of ham-fisted attempt expected by parents that blame their kids for their mistakes instead of their parenting.

Could you explain how it doesn't undermine your argument?

I think the term you are looking for is "Deep Net", although it originally meant websites that weren't indexed by web searches.