I dunno, if it is truly arbitrary then it sucks.

At first I thought it was a Political Compass

I mean, it's important to differentiate. There are such Gamers and such Gamers. If you're playing at a competitive level with genuine mindful analysis and awareness, rather than just larping, then that's different from spending 6+ hours on Candy Crush, Coin Master, or other games where the only real hook is dopamine generation with no meaningful challenge for the player (In effect basically all mainstream games on a casual level.)

This isn’t exactly news. Similar studies on gamer cognition have shown that long-term planning and impulse control tend to be weaker compared to non-gamers.
It aligns with those "brain rot" studies found: impairments in memory, attention, planning, and decision-making, along with emotional desensitization and a more negative self-concept.
I bet my generation who generally vegetated in front of the TV were exposed to the same risks. Even back then marketeers and co tried to sell (garbage) content with dopamine-driven feedback loops

Would it actually change anything? 55% of male hispanics voted Trump and most uneducated (uneducated as in no college education) People also voted Trump. In the end they would just cycle through people. Cletus and Clyde would then just be Miguel and Juan and be the same rednecks with a different accent.

Simple. I have no taste, haha

That's some Pygmalion type shit

Do North Koreans all have uber-hair genes, or why is there no option for bald?

>the poor (non-humans) shouldn't be allowed to start families
Oy Vey! Maybe the better approach would be minimizing the amount of poors we have in a society?

I hate those arguments so much. It always boils down to:
"AI is not 'real art' in the creative sense."
"Muh loss of commissions."

Is art once again just a craft, like before the Victorian era, where it's primarily about commissioned work? If so, where does the artistic—the creative—value in such commissions go? You can't simultaneously claim that art is an expression of individual creativity while also yelling, "Muh commissions!" You can say both, but that's textbook Luddism. Being anti-technology is based in my opinion, unless you try to hide it behind other arguments as if you're ashamed to admit it.

Actual avant-garde art that challenges the status quo and explores new ideas is always laughed at anyway. "Is this art or did the janitor forgot their lunch?"—until a well-known name is attached to it, and suddenly it becomes a highly sought-after investment. The art market is no longer a place for creativity; it's just a field for financial speculation.

Nah, if you throw all these so-called "Twitter artists" (the kind of people who buy books but never read them while pretending to be intellectuals) into a sack and start swinging a bat, you'll always hit the right ones. My God, they're just as performative and arrogant as the tech bros. (And their argument isn't even about the art market, where you can only make it as an artist through networking and ass-kissing... it's just about furry art and its equivalents. Cool.)

It's ridiculous to act as if art still has a serious societal role today. Unironically, memes have taken over the function of conveying cultural expression, political messages, and identity. The real problem isn’t AI; it’s that art has long since become a commodity, defined primarily by its market value. Blaming AI for that is giga copium.

Only those who see art purely as a career feel threatened. Unfairly so for individuals, because I don’t wish for anyone to be replaced (Then again, there’s the thought that if you can’t set yourself apart from AI art, maybe you chose the wrong career path in the first place. Not my thought... thank you, R*dd*t, for once again showing incredible solidarity to your fellow humans :^)). But rightfully so for the art market, let that collapse (But it won't because nothing ever happens.)