3 ms·
This kind of purist attitude is so self-defeating in my opinion. The choices are "make history interesting/easily digestible/accessible" or "not have people car
by joshstrange 6y ago
This kind of purist attitude is so self-defeating in my opinion. The choices are "make history interesting/easily digestible/accessible" or "not have people care", unfortunately "make people care more about history" doesn't just happen. I'm sorry but I'm not motivated at all to pick through old/inaccessible texts trying to pull out some historical significance but I'll gladly watch a documentary/YT series/TV docuseries that does a good job of explaining events, painting a full picture, and puts events in context.
The type of approach you suggest feels like the arguments about how people should just learn the CLI or low-level computer operations. The "We shouldn't bother with GUI's", "it's not important that we expose functionality with pretty UI", or "if people cared they would learn the CLI and be happy about it".
Making history/art/computers/etc more accessible is not a bad thing.
- snowwrestler 6y agoWe don't have to forbid AI-upscaling videos, we just have to maintain the proper awareness of what those actually are (entertainment) and are not (accurate history). That's what academic historians are speaking up about. "Alter things to make them more popular" is fine in some contexts, but if everyone starts confusing that with the original study of factual knowledge... that's a huge problem.
- prionassembly 6y agoThe ethics of this isn't really all that different from deepfaking.