Like, if we're generating something, it's generative. But the people I'm talking about do so with intention, and they write the systems that do the generating.

Algorithmic art is a more common term, the example I always think of is Casey Reas who does live pieces that grow organically. I was going to say demo scene stuff also qualifies, but that's usually totally deterministic even if it is algorithmically generated.

I also feel like it kind of throws genuine generative artists under the bus, ironic since AI boosters have always wanted to claim them as their own when what they do is very different.

Agreed, I also think even the term "GenAI" isn't especially helpful, a lot of people seem to have decided that's the line they're going to draw between good math and evil math, when an AI that generates proteins is just as generative as one that generates knock off concept art.

Thanks, I was getting back from work and that was the very last of the light, so just those are highlighted

I really thought he would be an immortal cyborg tbh, just too evil to die

I make sure not to have a visible clock or look at my phone. It doesn't help me sleep, but it means I can ignore that dread until I see light coming in through the shades.

It's not a waste for them, they're buying future pardons, or FTC approval of their next merger / acquisition.

I think it's entirely possible for something to have rewatch value but for the first viewing to also be something special, not knowing what's coming. A spoiler shouldn't ruin something completely, but I don't agree that they shouldn't matter at all.

This is part of a trend I really don't understand, where posting pics is the point of doing things, rather than, y'know, the thing itself.