Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website

[helius]

I imagine "AI Cartoons" being like Jerk City (published for decades starting in 1998).
The gag is the same in each strip: an uninformed reader would think someone actually wrote and drew it, but as a qualified expert I know that the whole thing is just somebody on IRC (with Microsoft Comic Chat) pressing the PrScr key.

[wilfred]

Is this an original? I think due to the format, Scott could totally train an AI to make daily comic strips and we would have no idea that he is doing that. Insert every now and then the building shown from the outside with floating text, gotta reuse that frame.

He's actually talked about this very thing quite a bit. His feeling is that it won't work because AI can't "feel" when a joke is funny, it's got no feedback mechanism like that.
Also, AI doesn't do anything new, it's just a language model that uses existing work as a reference and tried to think of variations on that. So it would get stale very quickly.

Are you saying Scott Adams is an AI bot? That would be intriguing. I suppose this would be one way towards  proving it. But not conclusively. The comics could be unfunny stale variations without fresh ideas and hard work even from a human. It is entirely possible he would do this. If he is getting subscription money regardless of the quality of the comics then why not.

There is probably some legal or ethical hazard to publishing falsely as Scott Adams in syndicated publications but doing it as an AI bot masquerading as Scott Adams in a closed subscription only platform is a great joke to play on the gullible subscribers. Who may never notice.

[EEVblog]

Are you saying Scott Adams is an AI bot? That would be intriguing. I suppose this would be one way towards  proving it. But not conclusively. The comics could be unfunny stale variations without fresh ideas and hard work even from a human. It is entirely possible he would do this. If he is getting subscription money regardless of the quality of the comics then why not.

There is probably some legal or ethical hazard to publishing falsely as Scott Adams in syndicated publications but doing it as an AI bot masquerading as Scott Adams in a closed subscription only platform is a great joke to play on the gullible subscribers. Who may never notice.

Hillarious. You should write a comic strip...

[.RC.]

There is probably some legal or ethical hazard to publishing falsely as Scott Adams in syndicated publications but doing it as an AI bot masquerading as Scott Adams in a closed subscription only platform is a great joke to play on the gullible subscribers. Who may never notice.

Well you are all bots are you not?

Imagine that, a fake reality, creating it's own fake reality and fooling the original fake reality.

[wilfred]

Hillarious. You should write a comic strip...

I think you're being sarcastic. But maybe not. Someone once told me I was gullible, and I believed them.

[EEVblog]

There is probably some legal or ethical hazard to publishing falsely as Scott Adams in syndicated publications but doing it as an AI bot masquerading as Scott Adams in a closed subscription only platform is a great joke to play on the gullible subscribers. Who may never notice.

Well you are all bots are you not?
Imagine that, a fake reality, creating it's own fake reality and fooling the original fake reality.

Ironically, Adams literally believes we are a simulation.

[tggzzz]

Ironically, Adams literally believes we are a simulation.

That's either a good joke on your part, or is useful background to his political (etc) views. I can't be arsed to research which of those it might be

[tszaboo]

Is this an original? I think due to the format, Scott could totally train an AI to make daily comic strips and we would have no idea that he is doing that. Insert every now and then the building shown from the outside with floating text, gotta reuse that frame.

He's actually talked about this very thing quite a bit. His feeling is that it won't work because AI can't "feel" when a joke is funny, it's got no feedback mechanism like that.
Also, AI doesn't do anything new, it's just a language model that uses existing work as a reference and tried to think of variations on that. So it would get stale very quickly.

There is a party card game called Joking hazard, where from the Cyanide and Happiness webcomic you are supposed to make a joke with the random frames (on the card) you are dealt with. Funniest ones wins.

[aargee]

That's like it's not really Dave, I've seen the AI EEVBlog YouTube video of the bot complaining that the real Dave is too Pommy sounding.

[Zero999]

Is there a way to ban users from certain threads? That would solve a few problems.

Anyway, is there anyone who found Adam's remarks offensive, or extremely disagreeable, yet still appreciates his comics?

I certainly didn't find it offensive and can appreciate his comics, but not enough to go out of my way to get them. I remember people having some of pin-ups of his comic strips enlarged where I used to work around 15 years ago, but didn't buy any.

[james_s]

He seems a tad unhinged but not particularly offensive, and it makes absolutely no difference in my opinion of his comics. He could be a full on card carrying communist or nazi and it wouldn't affect my opinion of his comic. The personal life and views of an artist is totally separate from the art they produce, I don't link them at all.

[Ed.Kloonk]

Anyway, is there anyone who found Adam's remarks offensive, or extremely disagreeable, yet still appreciates his comics?

That's not how cancel culture works.

[SiliconWizard]

With cancel culture, you do not own your appreciation of something, you merely borrow it from the social consensus and must be ready to give it up at any point.
 

[.RC.]

I think that really is your "public" appreciation of something.  What you think privately is currently not able to be determined.

Essentially peer group pressure. And that has gone on for an eternity, not just in today's "enlightened and free"* world.

*you are enlightened and free to follow what you think is the majority demands

[EEVblog]

I think that really is your "public" appreciation of something.  What you think privately is currently not able to be determined.

That doesn't stop people speculating, assuming, or thinking they can infer your opinions.

I was just attacked on Twitter the other day for "the company I keep" in regards to me simply watching another creators Youtube videos. Got to the point that I had to block them, as they would not stop saying I was supporting bigotry, blah blah blah. No amount of explaination would do anything, they wanted me to completely and publicly disavow this other creator for things I've never heard them even say.
And of course, even if I did that, it would not be enough. It's never enough...
This is what ideological possession does to people.

So your private opinions might be private to you, but that doesn't stop anyone else applying whatever they like to you regardless.

[Ed.Kloonk]

I think that really is your "public" appreciation of something.  What you think privately is currently not able to be determined.

That doesn't stop people speculating, assuming, or thinking they can infer your opinions.

Woody Allen poked fun of this in a filum he made 40 years ago.

And as you'd expect, the audience missed the joke and took offence by taking it personally. Now of course you can't even mention the woodman without someone invariably bringing up his later life bullshit. Kinda proving the point.

https://youtu.be/Q-ZmaLE8dao?t=371

[nctnico]

I think that really is your "public" appreciation of something.  What you think privately is currently not able to be determined.

That doesn't stop people speculating, assuming, or thinking they can infer your opinions.

I was just attacked on Twitter the other day for "the company I keep" in regards to me simply watching another creators Youtube videos. Got to the point that I had to block them, as they would not stop saying I was supporting bigotry, blah blah blah. No amount of explaination would do anything, they wanted me to completely and publicly disavow this other creator for things I've never heard them even say.
And of course, even if I did that, it would not be enough. It's never enough...

Let me paraphrase that: if you are on twitter (or any social media for that matter), you have no life 
-sigh-

[coppice]

I think that really is your "public" appreciation of something.  What you think privately is currently not able to be determined.

That doesn't stop people speculating, assuming, or thinking they can infer your opinions.

Woody Allen poked fun of this in a filum he made 40 years ago.

And as you'd expect, the audience missed the joke and took offence by taking it personally. Now of course you can't even mention the woodman without someone invariably bringing up his later life bullshit. Kinda proving the point.

https://youtu.be/Q-ZmaLE8dao?t=371

Woody Allen likes to poke at things like that. My favourite is the one in Annie Hall - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTSmbMm7MDg#t=1m45s

[EEVblog]

Let me paraphrase that: if you are on twitter (or any social media for that matter), you have no life 
-sigh-

A forum isn't that much different 

[james_s]

I think that really is your "public" appreciation of something.  What you think privately is currently not able to be determined.

That doesn't stop people speculating, assuming, or thinking they can infer your opinions.

I was just attacked on Twitter the other day for "the company I keep" in regards to me simply watching another creators Youtube videos. Got to the point that I had to block them, as they would not stop saying I was supporting bigotry, blah blah blah. No amount of explaination would do anything, they wanted me to completely and publicly disavow this other creator for things I've never heard them even say.
And of course, even if I did that, it would not be enough. It's never enough...
This is what ideological possession does to people.

So your private opinions might be private to you, but that doesn't stop anyone else applying whatever they like to you regardless.

Yep, make one single comment on some topic and some people will instantly infer a complete picture of you in their head, they will make assumptions on all sorts of unrelated stuff based on one single data point. It's absurd.

[james_s]

Woody Allen likes to poke at things like that. My favourite is the one in Annie Hall - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTSmbMm7MDg#t=1m45s

I saw that movie for the first time recently, having heard how great it was supposed to be. It had moments that were funny but overall I was very underwhelmed. It's not one I'd want to watch more than once.

[.RC.]

It works like this doesn't it.

Someone says on social media.  "I am going to taste this lemonade that is fizzy straight away"

Some people see.

I AM going to tAste this lemoNAde that fiZzy straIght away

[Ed.Kloonk]

Now you're getting it. 

All we have to do now is convince you that it's not really lemonade. 

[.RC.]

Now you're getting it. 

All we have to do now is convince you that it's not really lemonade. 

Has Big Clive's "Will it carbonate" experiments been getting out of hand?   

[SiliconWizard]

Carbon is bad.