Maybe not futuristic, but I’m sure there’s a pack of portraits in a consistent style and lighting that you could edit to look more futuristic. Most good photo editing programs have ways to apply edits to a big batch of photos, so I bet you could do a bulk of the work in one go, then touch things up from there.
I’m sure there are stock images of actual people you could get access to, for a fee. That plus some image editing to get the style you want might be a way to avoid using AI for the portraits. I totally understand wanting to use AI for the voices though, that seems fair.
Well that certainly is an opinion
If you’re doing something like gathering research materials, a lot of times people will grab a bunch of stuff of the shelves at once then take it all back to a table somewhere to peruse. In that scenario it’s definitely likely you’ll forget where something went, or mix things up.
This is just indicative of how dug in you are. You won’t even consider the possibility of being wrong as long as there are “experts” agreeing with your misguided view.
No, I still don’t agree with the same incorrect bullshit you’ve been saying for the past 36 hours now
I agree that driving is unnatural and overstimulating, and that’s definitely part of it. I think another part of it is that it’s really easy to see other drivers on the road as “other cars” more than “other people”. Driving is dehumanizing, in the sense that it makes it harder for people to see other drivers as fellow humans rather than adversarial machines, and people act accordingly.
Are you serious? Like, you can’t be serious at this point. I sent that article to you, like 4 comments ago. We’ve already discussed it, in this very thread. 🥱
It doesn’t matter what arguments I give you, you’re dug in. That’s what’s boring - every new angle anyone tries with you just gets the same old tired “my science is correct and infallible, yours is wrong” response. “Arguments” like that are boring. 🤷
I think Richard Dawkins is a transphobe because he frequently makes public anti-trans statements and conflates gender and sex in a way that is weaponized against trans people.
If you think acknowledging scientific truth is transphobic, that’s entirely on you.
Jesus dude this is just boring now. Claiming your outdated view is “scientific truth” hasn’t worked all day, maybe find a new slant.
and then points out that it’s scientifically inaccurate
by quoting noted transphobe, Richard Dawkins lmao.
Why are you so focused on spreading transphobic rhetoric?
If you understood how it’s disrespectful, it wouldn’t be hard to explain. Here’s an example:
Sexual assault is disrespectful because it violates a person’s bodily autonomy, which is a fundamental human right.
See? Easy. Now, try that for “people who dress wrong”.
sorry but you are disagreeing with the scientific and academic consensus.
Hmmm, an interesting assertion, one that would be all the more interesting were it not for the open letter sent to the president, signed by ~3500 scientists, saying sex isn’t binary. Weird.
You wanna know what else is weird? This whole “gametes determine sex” thing is something Donald Trump says, and used as the “scientific basis” for one of his incredibly transphobic executive orders. An order that basically makes it illegal to be trans. The order that that letter I linked, the one signed by 3500 scientists, was a direct response to.
You’re refusing to acknowledge the scientific consensus, and that’s really disappointing.
No, what’s disappointing is that you’ve spent the better part of your day parroting and defending right-wing pseudoscience, then have the gall to tell others that they’re refusing to acknowledge scientific consensus.
The idea you’re so vehemently “just being the messenger” for originated over a hundred years ago dude. The science has changed since then. We’ve learned more. It’s time for you to catch up.
What’s in this for you? Why is it so important for you to believe that sex is binary, to try and convince everyone in this thread that sex is binary? How does this narrow-minded, oversimplified view that ignores modern biology serve you? And, maybe most curiously, why do you think “there’s a few extremists pushing for silly things?” What silly things? What kinds of extremists? Let’s go down this fucking rabbit hole together my dude.
It’s just so funny seeing you acknowledge all over the place that all these other characteristics of sex are not binary, except for gametes (which in reality, also aren’t binary), and that just happens to be the thing you’re pinning your definition of sex to. Like, the pieces are all there and it just looks like you’re refusing to put them all together.
It also means there are more than two options for sex. Meaning it isn’t binary.
Except when they’re not. At which point your binary classification* system has more than two classifications it can make, making it definitionally not binary.
It’s disrespectful to the people who set it up and to everyone else who is there to have a nice evening.
How
I mean if you don’t find dressing like that to a black tie event disrespectful that’s just a reflection on you
How
I’m begging you, explain how it’s disrespectful. I don’t think you can, because I think you agree with me that it isn’t actually disrespectful.
If no one’s arguing it then why did you bring it up? And no one said anything about sex being a social construct. It’s obviously a biological thing, which explains why you seem not to understand it.
I implore you to take a normal biology course in the present day and then get back to us
From there, it probably wouldn’t be too difficult to make it moddable, so people could even create their own voice packs and portraits if they wanted