6 ms·

Absolutely. Because if we don't draw line there, we'll see no end to history (and art is part of history) being rewritten and modified for increasingly inane re

Absolutely. Because if we don't draw line there, we'll see no end to history (and art is part of history) being rewritten and modified for increasingly inane reasons. And poorly, at that. We should trust our basic intelligence and judge content in the time period it was made and extract what we find valuable out of it. Anything else suggests either we're stupid, or we want to be treated like we're stupid. And that's a sad future for humanity if so.

Silverback_VII 3y ago
>Anything else suggests either we're stupid, or we want to be treated like we're stupid. I have the same feeling when I use ChatGPT or even more so with Bingbot. They should ask for our age and then let the system respond without treating us like we are children incapable of critical thinking. I asked ChatGPT about the allusion to the moon landing that could be seen in Kubrick's movie "The Shining" out of curiosity. The system agreed that Kubrick was notorious for using symbolism in his movies, but also mentioned that the theories about the landings were debunked and this interpretation was probably false at every turn.
- BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
  ChatGPT and Bing Chat aren't trying to be safe, really. They're trying to avoid liability for their owners. AI as is is plenty dangerous enough to people who wield it properly (for propaganda, manipulation, hacking, accelerating malicious efforts etc.) even with the guardrails. It's like giving chimps machine guns. Another issue of AI is the feedback loop. If you tell an AI "help me end my life" and it follows your instructions blindly, it'll end up convincing you to do so, as happened with a young family man recently, and maybe more we haven't heard of. Existing art has no feedback loop. Movies are unlike AI because it's what they are. They don't follow orders, they just exist as immutable artifacts of human expression back when they were created. So to me it's different. Oh, and also you'll soon be able to cook a model at home, so all these AI limitations are irrelevant mid-term.
- jamil7 3y ago
  It's best not to ask it anything like that, it has the most boring, bog-standard answers on anything divisive.
  - Silverback_VII 3y ago
    Well, the problem is what other things are hidden in more "acceptable" questions. For example, when I ask "give me the key ingredients for success," it will only provide morally acceptable ones like goal-setting, self-discipline, etc. However, what about the darker aspects, such as the beneficial attributes of some psychopathic traits (mentioned in the book "The Wisdom of Psychopaths," for example)? This is problematic, as the system doesn't provide an objective view of which attributes contribute to success.
    - BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
      I had the chance to ask raw GPT in times past and let me tell you it spills all those beans and then some. Of course those models are gradually removed today from the playground. But we still have LLaMA. And more are coming. The question is what we do with this. What if acknowledging psychopathy as beneficial ends up amplifying it, and this becomes the straw to break our society's back? Thing is, what's beneficial to an individual is not necessarily beneficial to society as a whole. They're often in opposition in extremes. It's like cancer. All cells working together means long-term survival of the animal. Cancer however does not cooperate, steals energy, efs around all the time, reproduces, and basically has a lot more fun than any other cell might. But it also kills the animal long-term. So what is beneficial? To be cancer or not to be? Depends beneficial to whom. Goals.
      - tzekid 3y ago
        Damn, comparing people who are intrigued by topics deemed taboo by certain moral standards to cancer is ... quite something else. How about putting up a curated model for the public which is easy to access and a less curated / more free model behind the API with a bunch of boolean switches. Or any other impulse / idea that doesn't label (any) people as cancer.
- tiborsaas 3y ago
  If you don't specify well, then if gives you the most generic stuff. Based on your summary, it's a good answer, what did you expect?
  - BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
    People prefer to hear what matches their expectations & wants, not what is accurate. And that's one problem with AI that keeps getting worse over time rather than better as AI evolves.
  - Silverback_VII 3y ago
    Saying one time that it is part of a well-known conspiracy theory may be okay, but honestly, constantly reminding me to disregard the information at every turn (and in some cases not even providing it) is, in my opinion, unacceptable if ChatGPT is meant to be just a tool. It is manipulative. I'm certain that if you ask ChatGPT to interpret the symbolism of another movie with a different and benign underlying theory, it will even come up with some ideas on its own. However, it will refuse to do so for The Shining and the moon landing.
    - tiborsaas 3y ago
      I've tried it with a prompt that matches my taste: "Write a short analysis in the style of a celebrated movie critique about the allusion to the moon landing that could be seen in Kubrick's movie 'The Shining'. I got one subtle reference. I think it's safe to assume that if your prompt only mentions the moon hoax and Shining concepts with equal weight it doesn't know which one you are more interested in. So if one has some misconception in it, then it makes sense to correct you more strongly. Also, LLM-s aren't manipulating you, that requires intention which they don't have.
- DeathArrow 3y ago
  But soon there will be large models without censorship built in and without training on cooked data. Microsoft and OpenAI don't have exclusivity in this field.
  - suslik 3y ago
    People say this, and I want to believe that - but the costs of training these models are prohibitively high. I've seen different estimates for training GPT4, but it is certainly higher than $100M. Training a model analogous to GPT4 from scratch will probably cost billions. Actors such as national governments and big tech are attracted to censorship like a cat to a laser pointer; they'd never allow themselves to tickle public sensibilities with an uncensored AI. Also, there is no doubt that soon countries will start introducing regulation of AI models that would put legal constraints on the type of text they can generate.
    - sumtechguy 3y ago
      Why not believe it? I can go on eBay today and buy HW that was state of the art couple of 250k dollar a blade servers 10 years ago for a a few hundred bucks. In 10 years the a100 will be old hat. They will be most likely cheaply available. Set up something where as you noodle around on the web you add to a webgpt model with a plugin and you get to use it for free and people might jump on doing your modeling for you. That is not that hard to think of in the future. Now your legal idea holds some merit but people do not really seem to care much for that anymore.
    - tigerlily 3y ago
      Hmm, makes me wonder if a "GPT@home" project would be viable, like Folding and SETI, or the Mersenne prime guys.
- devoutsalsa 3y ago
  I want profanity mode. “Write $SOMETHING in the voice of someone with the mouth of sailor.” I will be disappointed until I get it from ChatGPT, Alexa, or something else.
femiagbabiaka 3y ago
History (and art) have always been rewritten in light of the morality of those with power. Case in point: the Bible. The current culture wars are just a modern version of that.
- commandlinefan 3y ago
  > rewritten in light of the morality of those with power. Case in point: the Bible Wait, are you saying that the bible itself has been rewritten (in terms of actual substance)? I was always under the impression that a lot of care was taken to preserve the original meaning of the underlying text, taking into account that it was written thousands of years ago in a language nobody fully understands anymore.
  - LanceH 3y ago
    > meaning of the underlying text The meaning is so highly disputed there are literally thousands of denominations.
    - commandlinefan 3y ago
      "Meaning" sure, but the actual words? I'm not being hostile, dude, I'm genuinely curious to see examples. Of course translations vary, but I was under the impression that the actual text of the translations didn't vary substantially (like "thou shalt not kill" became "you will not kill", etc.). But I don't have the bible memorized, so there may be more to it than I'm aware.
      - eitland 3y ago
        You are right. Massive effort has been put into creating correct translations, both concordant and simplified. And last time older writings were found they showed that the copies had been amazingly precisely done.
        sireat 3y ago
Beldin 3y ago
> Absolutely. Because if we don't draw line there, we'll see no end to history (and art is part of history) being rewritten and modified for increasingly inane reasons. While I am sympathetic to this argument, the article also mentions updates to stories by Ian Fleming and Roald Dahl. I see those updates as something that right holders do to sell more copies of well-known works to modern audiences. For me, that's their prerogative: their rights, they(1)'re welcome to try and make money off of it. In other words: do not commit censorship of existing works, but allow updates by anyone (modulo copyright(1)). (1) who should have exclusive rights (and when) for commercialising works is another question.
- YurgenJurgensen 3y ago
  There's a number of issues with the creation of adulterated versions of classic works cause by their mere existence. Unless you were already an expert in that particular topic, even knowing that the most accessible version is the censored one is difficult, since it's presumably not being published under the title "Classic Book: Current-Year Approved Edition", but just "Classic Book". The current dominance of streaming services also means that for most people the newest version may effectively be the only version that exists. And then there's the even worse practice of replacing version even for people who bought the original. In theory this could be done correctly. Products would announce that they're an edited version (and name the editor), and whatever digital storefront would enable people interested in the original to view it at no additional cost. But I don't trust modern platforms to do either of these things. Semi-related: Any video game developer that allows rolling back their game to any past version as a standard feature of their launcher deserves praise for this. And those whose remasters can be configured to be played exactly as the original should the user so wish.
- JeremyNT 3y ago
  Well that's the rub, right? We live in a world with strong copyright, where a corporation has complete ownership of cultural artifacts, and it can decide on its own whims what it thinks will be more profitable at a given time. The tendency of corporations to go back and revise/censor those old works in the name of profitability is just one of the many ways that lengthy copyright monopolies are damaging to society.
makeitdouble 3y ago
I think this would go that way naturally with less glorificafion. People want to manipulate classical art because it is set as some summum of art that we should always look up to. Leaving past art in its original form probably goes through accepting it's frozen in the past and interpreting it in context, and not as "intemporal" pieces.
tootie 3y ago
That assumes there's intrinsic value in preserving history. One of my favorite works of art is Dropping a Han Dynasty Urn by Ai Weiwei. To me it symbolizes breaking with the past and not being held prisoner by tradition. Spielberg doesn't want his own art to be changed because it's his and he wants the original artist's intent to be preserved. I don't think future generations are under any obligation to honor artist's intent.
- horsawlarway 3y ago
  I have strongly mixed feelings about this because: 1. I completely agree with you, art is changed as people change, and just because something is historic doesn't necessarily make it good or meaningful today (although nor does it make it meaningless). 2. Modern copyright law completely undermines point 1. If "we" are not allowed to change a thing because the right to change it is in the hands of a very small privileged group, then I wholeheartedly think the thing should be left the fuck alone. --- Basically - Want to rewrite that novel to use modern wording and sentiments? Go right ahead, but now that original work must be considered public domain. Otherwise... fuck right off.
  - jonhohle 3y ago
    Re: 2, why should someone recreating a work of their own invalidate their right to the original? I think current copyright laws are ridiculous, but within that framework why can’t a creator have two version of something they name the same thing at the same time? While I’m not a fan of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, should the movie invalidate the copyright on the radio shows that invalidated the copyright on the books that invalidated the copyright of the original radio shows? I have more concerns about companies sitting on works in a “vault” for decades. If a rightsholder isn’t making public a work they’ve been given exclusivity to to encourage developing collective culture, they should forfeit that right, IMHO. On the other hand, if I was paid royalties for all of the code I have that’s still running somewhere on some system and generating revenue somewhere, I’d probably fight to keep that money coming in, too!
- unaindz 3y ago
  There is value in that. One thing is tradition and one thing is media or history. I agree that traditions and culture should advance but by means of creating new things not overwritting existing ones. The Wire would not be the wire without the accent, manerisms including slurs, drugs and police brutality. Dazed & Confused would not be the same without the 70s issues and fortunes but you have the show Skins replacing those with the 2000 "revisions" or Euphoria with the 2020 ones. There is no need to rewrite any of those. It could be argued that in movies like Blade Runner the rapey scene of Deckard and Rachel does not add anything to the story or characters. Ignoring the technical difficulty of changing those scenes without altering the story narrative or the character morals and flaws at the end of the day is a product of it's time with it's flaws. In this case it was designed that way on purpose although I consider the reasons weak and it could have been done better if that was the intent. It doesn't help that the actress did not enjoy making the scene. https://youtu.be/vIdlYzbugT8?t=261 https://youtu.be/vIdlYzbugT8?t=261 It can also be interpreted as Deckard being a lowlife scum that purposely rapes Rachel taking advantage of the fact that she is being hunted, he is the only one who is going to protect her and she knows it. In this case maybe not you or me would care if the scene was rewritten but I'm sure someone trying to study older movies, a director or Harrison Ford cuestionable love scenes would if only the rewritten movie had survived. If remakes add something to the table it's the ability to reimagine stories in a less flawed way by our standards without deleting the past. TLDR; rewriting media is very nuanced and we should take the easy way out of remaking it or creating new stuff instead.
commandlinefan 3y ago
> we'll see no end to history ... being rewritten Actually, watching it happen in real time and seeing people insist, in real time, that it's irrelevant... makes me wonder how many times it's happened before and been ignored. How much of what I've been taught about history can I trust?
- BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
  I'm in Europe, and every country has different takes of the same historical events. Sometimes not much, but sometimes wildly and drastically. Incompatibly. It's insane to see the dissonance. Americans don't get to see this as much, because the states synchronize more or less, despite the right/left cultural divide. History is mostly BS. Fairy tales very broadly and crudely constrained by some dates and events. We don't know a thing. And that's one reason we can't learn. The past is recast for propaganda purposes to control the present and the future. Nothing more.
  - jonhohle 3y ago
    Do you have any examples? Is each countries viewpoint backed by evidence and record?
    - BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
      Check the historical conflict between Macedonia and Bulgaria. Bulgaria claims Macedonia was always part of Bulgaria, then split off, so they recognized them as an independent country and that was it. Macedonia claims all figures from the region as Macedonian, and calls itself the predecessor of the entire region. They also are highly aggressive against Bulgarians and call them fascists' and oppressors. All in all sad sight. The smaller the countries, the weaker, the more similar, the more adversarial are they towards one another. It's like a pathological sibling relationship. There's dissonance and each one is fighting to "set the record straight" and dominate.
    - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
      Look into the events of 1970s in Cyprus. The deeper you look, the more complex and intricate the story becomes. Read it from the perspective of Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots, Turkey, Greece, UK, and US. Look into who committed what, and how they got in that position in the first place.

Silverback_VII 3y ago

>Anything else suggests either we're stupid, or we want to be treated like we're stupid. I have the same feeling when I use ChatGPT or even more so with Bingbot. They should ask for our age and then let the system respond without treating us like we are children incapable of critical thinking. I asked ChatGPT about the allusion to the moon landing that could be seen in Kubrick's movie "The Shining" out of curiosity. The system agreed that Kubrick was notorious for using symbolism in his movies, but also mentioned that the theories about the landings were debunked and this interpretation was probably false at every turn.

BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
ChatGPT and Bing Chat aren't trying to be safe, really. They're trying to avoid liability for their owners. AI as is is plenty dangerous enough to people who wield it properly (for propaganda, manipulation, hacking, accelerating malicious efforts etc.) even with the guardrails. It's like giving chimps machine guns. Another issue of AI is the feedback loop. If you tell an AI "help me end my life" and it follows your instructions blindly, it'll end up convincing you to do so, as happened with a young family man recently, and maybe more we haven't heard of. Existing art has no feedback loop. Movies are unlike AI because it's what they are. They don't follow orders, they just exist as immutable artifacts of human expression back when they were created. So to me it's different. Oh, and also you'll soon be able to cook a model at home, so all these AI limitations are irrelevant mid-term.
jamil7 3y ago
It's best not to ask it anything like that, it has the most boring, bog-standard answers on anything divisive.
- Silverback_VII 3y ago
  Well, the problem is what other things are hidden in more "acceptable" questions. For example, when I ask "give me the key ingredients for success," it will only provide morally acceptable ones like goal-setting, self-discipline, etc. However, what about the darker aspects, such as the beneficial attributes of some psychopathic traits (mentioned in the book "The Wisdom of Psychopaths," for example)? This is problematic, as the system doesn't provide an objective view of which attributes contribute to success.
  - BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
    I had the chance to ask raw GPT in times past and let me tell you it spills all those beans and then some. Of course those models are gradually removed today from the playground. But we still have LLaMA. And more are coming. The question is what we do with this. What if acknowledging psychopathy as beneficial ends up amplifying it, and this becomes the straw to break our society's back? Thing is, what's beneficial to an individual is not necessarily beneficial to society as a whole. They're often in opposition in extremes. It's like cancer. All cells working together means long-term survival of the animal. Cancer however does not cooperate, steals energy, efs around all the time, reproduces, and basically has a lot more fun than any other cell might. But it also kills the animal long-term. So what is beneficial? To be cancer or not to be? Depends beneficial to whom. Goals.
    - tzekid 3y ago
      Damn, comparing people who are intrigued by topics deemed taboo by certain moral standards to cancer is ... quite something else. How about putting up a curated model for the public which is easy to access and a less curated / more free model behind the API with a bunch of boolean switches. Or any other impulse / idea that doesn't label (any) people as cancer.
tiborsaas 3y ago
If you don't specify well, then if gives you the most generic stuff. Based on your summary, it's a good answer, what did you expect?
- BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
  People prefer to hear what matches their expectations & wants, not what is accurate. And that's one problem with AI that keeps getting worse over time rather than better as AI evolves.
- Silverback_VII 3y ago
  Saying one time that it is part of a well-known conspiracy theory may be okay, but honestly, constantly reminding me to disregard the information at every turn (and in some cases not even providing it) is, in my opinion, unacceptable if ChatGPT is meant to be just a tool. It is manipulative. I'm certain that if you ask ChatGPT to interpret the symbolism of another movie with a different and benign underlying theory, it will even come up with some ideas on its own. However, it will refuse to do so for The Shining and the moon landing.
  - tiborsaas 3y ago
    I've tried it with a prompt that matches my taste: "Write a short analysis in the style of a celebrated movie critique about the allusion to the moon landing that could be seen in Kubrick's movie 'The Shining'. I got one subtle reference. I think it's safe to assume that if your prompt only mentions the moon hoax and Shining concepts with equal weight it doesn't know which one you are more interested in. So if one has some misconception in it, then it makes sense to correct you more strongly. Also, LLM-s aren't manipulating you, that requires intention which they don't have.
DeathArrow 3y ago
But soon there will be large models without censorship built in and without training on cooked data. Microsoft and OpenAI don't have exclusivity in this field.
- suslik 3y ago
  People say this, and I want to believe that - but the costs of training these models are prohibitively high. I've seen different estimates for training GPT4, but it is certainly higher than $100M. Training a model analogous to GPT4 from scratch will probably cost billions. Actors such as national governments and big tech are attracted to censorship like a cat to a laser pointer; they'd never allow themselves to tickle public sensibilities with an uncensored AI. Also, there is no doubt that soon countries will start introducing regulation of AI models that would put legal constraints on the type of text they can generate.
  - sumtechguy 3y ago
    Why not believe it? I can go on eBay today and buy HW that was state of the art couple of 250k dollar a blade servers 10 years ago for a a few hundred bucks. In 10 years the a100 will be old hat. They will be most likely cheaply available. Set up something where as you noodle around on the web you add to a webgpt model with a plugin and you get to use it for free and people might jump on doing your modeling for you. That is not that hard to think of in the future. Now your legal idea holds some merit but people do not really seem to care much for that anymore.
  - tigerlily 3y ago
    Hmm, makes me wonder if a "GPT@home" project would be viable, like Folding and SETI, or the Mersenne prime guys.
devoutsalsa 3y ago
I want profanity mode. “Write $SOMETHING in the voice of someone with the mouth of sailor.” I will be disappointed until I get it from ChatGPT, Alexa, or something else.

femiagbabiaka 3y ago

History (and art) have always been rewritten in light of the morality of those with power. Case in point: the Bible. The current culture wars are just a modern version of that.

commandlinefan 3y ago
> rewritten in light of the morality of those with power. Case in point: the Bible Wait, are you saying that the bible itself has been rewritten (in terms of actual substance)? I was always under the impression that a lot of care was taken to preserve the original meaning of the underlying text, taking into account that it was written thousands of years ago in a language nobody fully understands anymore.
- LanceH 3y ago
  > meaning of the underlying text The meaning is so highly disputed there are literally thousands of denominations.
  - commandlinefan 3y ago
    "Meaning" sure, but the actual words? I'm not being hostile, dude, I'm genuinely curious to see examples. Of course translations vary, but I was under the impression that the actual text of the translations didn't vary substantially (like "thou shalt not kill" became "you will not kill", etc.). But I don't have the bible memorized, so there may be more to it than I'm aware.
    - eitland 3y ago
      You are right. Massive effort has been put into creating correct translations, both concordant and simplified. And last time older writings were found they showed that the copies had been amazingly precisely done.
      - sireat 3y ago

Beldin 3y ago

> Absolutely. Because if we don't draw line there, we'll see no end to history (and art is part of history) being rewritten and modified for increasingly inane reasons. While I am sympathetic to this argument, the article also mentions updates to stories by Ian Fleming and Roald Dahl. I see those updates as something that right holders do to sell more copies of well-known works to modern audiences. For me, that's their prerogative: their rights, they(1)'re welcome to try and make money off of it. In other words: do not commit censorship of existing works, but allow updates by anyone (modulo copyright(1)). (1) who should have exclusive rights (and when) for commercialising works is another question.

YurgenJurgensen 3y ago
There's a number of issues with the creation of adulterated versions of classic works cause by their mere existence. Unless you were already an expert in that particular topic, even knowing that the most accessible version is the censored one is difficult, since it's presumably not being published under the title "Classic Book: Current-Year Approved Edition", but just "Classic Book". The current dominance of streaming services also means that for most people the newest version may effectively be the only version that exists. And then there's the even worse practice of replacing version even for people who bought the original. In theory this could be done correctly. Products would announce that they're an edited version (and name the editor), and whatever digital storefront would enable people interested in the original to view it at no additional cost. But I don't trust modern platforms to do either of these things. Semi-related: Any video game developer that allows rolling back their game to any past version as a standard feature of their launcher deserves praise for this. And those whose remasters can be configured to be played exactly as the original should the user so wish.
JeremyNT 3y ago
Well that's the rub, right? We live in a world with strong copyright, where a corporation has complete ownership of cultural artifacts, and it can decide on its own whims what it thinks will be more profitable at a given time. The tendency of corporations to go back and revise/censor those old works in the name of profitability is just one of the many ways that lengthy copyright monopolies are damaging to society.

makeitdouble 3y ago

I think this would go that way naturally with less glorificafion. People want to manipulate classical art because it is set as some summum of art that we should always look up to. Leaving past art in its original form probably goes through accepting it's frozen in the past and interpreting it in context, and not as "intemporal" pieces.

tootie 3y ago

That assumes there's intrinsic value in preserving history. One of my favorite works of art is Dropping a Han Dynasty Urn by Ai Weiwei. To me it symbolizes breaking with the past and not being held prisoner by tradition. Spielberg doesn't want his own art to be changed because it's his and he wants the original artist's intent to be preserved. I don't think future generations are under any obligation to honor artist's intent.

horsawlarway 3y ago
I have strongly mixed feelings about this because: 1. I completely agree with you, art is changed as people change, and just because something is historic doesn't necessarily make it good or meaningful today (although nor does it make it meaningless). 2. Modern copyright law completely undermines point 1. If "we" are not allowed to change a thing because the right to change it is in the hands of a very small privileged group, then I wholeheartedly think the thing should be left the fuck alone. --- Basically - Want to rewrite that novel to use modern wording and sentiments? Go right ahead, but now that original work must be considered public domain. Otherwise... fuck right off.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  Re: 2, why should someone recreating a work of their own invalidate their right to the original? I think current copyright laws are ridiculous, but within that framework why can’t a creator have two version of something they name the same thing at the same time? While I’m not a fan of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, should the movie invalidate the copyright on the radio shows that invalidated the copyright on the books that invalidated the copyright of the original radio shows? I have more concerns about companies sitting on works in a “vault” for decades. If a rightsholder isn’t making public a work they’ve been given exclusivity to to encourage developing collective culture, they should forfeit that right, IMHO. On the other hand, if I was paid royalties for all of the code I have that’s still running somewhere on some system and generating revenue somewhere, I’d probably fight to keep that money coming in, too!
unaindz 3y ago
There is value in that. One thing is tradition and one thing is media or history. I agree that traditions and culture should advance but by means of creating new things not overwritting existing ones. The Wire would not be the wire without the accent, manerisms including slurs, drugs and police brutality. Dazed & Confused would not be the same without the 70s issues and fortunes but you have the show Skins replacing those with the 2000 "revisions" or Euphoria with the 2020 ones. There is no need to rewrite any of those. It could be argued that in movies like Blade Runner the rapey scene of Deckard and Rachel does not add anything to the story or characters. Ignoring the technical difficulty of changing those scenes without altering the story narrative or the character morals and flaws at the end of the day is a product of it's time with it's flaws. In this case it was designed that way on purpose although I consider the reasons weak and it could have been done better if that was the intent. It doesn't help that the actress did not enjoy making the scene. https://youtu.be/vIdlYzbugT8?t=261 https://youtu.be/vIdlYzbugT8?t=261 It can also be interpreted as Deckard being a lowlife scum that purposely rapes Rachel taking advantage of the fact that she is being hunted, he is the only one who is going to protect her and she knows it. In this case maybe not you or me would care if the scene was rewritten but I'm sure someone trying to study older movies, a director or Harrison Ford cuestionable love scenes would if only the rewritten movie had survived. If remakes add something to the table it's the ability to reimagine stories in a less flawed way by our standards without deleting the past. TLDR; rewriting media is very nuanced and we should take the easy way out of remaking it or creating new stuff instead.

commandlinefan 3y ago

> we'll see no end to history ... being rewritten Actually, watching it happen in real time and seeing people insist, in real time, that it's irrelevant... makes me wonder how many times it's happened before and been ignored. How much of what I've been taught about history can I trust?

BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
I'm in Europe, and every country has different takes of the same historical events. Sometimes not much, but sometimes wildly and drastically. Incompatibly. It's insane to see the dissonance. Americans don't get to see this as much, because the states synchronize more or less, despite the right/left cultural divide. History is mostly BS. Fairy tales very broadly and crudely constrained by some dates and events. We don't know a thing. And that's one reason we can't learn. The past is recast for propaganda purposes to control the present and the future. Nothing more.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  Do you have any examples? Is each countries viewpoint backed by evidence and record?
  - BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
    Check the historical conflict between Macedonia and Bulgaria. Bulgaria claims Macedonia was always part of Bulgaria, then split off, so they recognized them as an independent country and that was it. Macedonia claims all figures from the region as Macedonian, and calls itself the predecessor of the entire region. They also are highly aggressive against Bulgarians and call them fascists' and oppressors. All in all sad sight. The smaller the countries, the weaker, the more similar, the more adversarial are they towards one another. It's like a pathological sibling relationship. There's dissonance and each one is fighting to "set the record straight" and dominate.
  - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
    Look into the events of 1970s in Cyprus. The deeper you look, the more complex and intricate the story becomes. Read it from the perspective of Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots, Turkey, Greece, UK, and US. Look into who committed what, and how they got in that position in the first place.