describing the setting should (ideally) be done through a character's interaction with the setting.
if you're developing some sort of dystopia where everyone is heavily medicated, better to show a character casually take the medication rather than describe it.
of course, that's not a rule set in stone. you can do whatever the fuck you want.
Also while there is an abundance of reasons of varying legitimacy they're both good examples because people often run in to them and are annoyed by the use of the words out of proportion to running into the actual legitimate reasons to be annoyed by the concept.
The number of people annoyed, by words like rizz or are angry that doctor can refer to a female, far out weigh the people legitimately trying to figure out if rizz is something they need to protect their kids from or getting delayed medical care because they needed to wait because they only feel comfortable with their own sex.
Whether this was a joke or a backtracking, or this dared waste your oh so precious time- You're missing the forest for the trees. There's extreme covert and even overt hostility between how people stand on AI's gluttonous usage of the commons.
We're about to waltz into a deep period of tension between developers, and people who, empowered by multimillion dollars corporations, bravely violate developers' copyrights in the hopes of replacing their jobs, while bullying these same developers who dare express their discontent.
Developers never had "intellectual property". Under capitalism, only billion-dollar corporations do. So the problem with AI isn't that it violated some license. The real problems are that people are losing jobs, that the Internet and our community gets clogged up with more low-effort slop competing for our attention than ever before, and that the products we are all forced to use are becoming worse because corporations are trying to shove AI-features into them and put quotas on engineers to vibe-code as much as possible. There are definitely others. "Copyright" is not even scratching the surface of real problems with LLMs, and many of the people leading the charge in pointing out the evil and hypocrisy of AI companies are themselves copyright abolitionists.
Open source is a comittment. It is entitled of companies to grow developer user bases by promising that they will continue to provide their product to consumers and foster an open community, then pull the rug once openness no longer benefits them. The decision to go open source should less often be guided by financial reasons. It is foremost a social system of distributed labour and dependence.
if you're developing some sort of dystopia where everyone is heavily medicated, better to show a character casually take the medication rather than describe it.
of course, that's not a rule set in stone. you can do whatever the fuck you want.
reply