sorceress.emma.ly
she/her • 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ • recovering serial project abandoner; former IT manager, now serving as the Data Sorceress; intensely gay in every way
Twitch strim @ http://sorceressemmaly.com
169 posts
496 followers
1,738 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Yeah, where are those “good guys with guns” to protect us 😒
comment in response to
post
My mom lied about my vaccine record so I could be put in public school, so I don't even know which vaccines I haven't had. I've had some vaccines as a catch up, but I guarantee you that there are vaccines we missed until I've literally had all of them, even ones I was sure I got.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Confirmed cancelled. Bad policies don't get my money.
comment in response to
post
Confirmed cancelled. I didn't just back out at the last step. Bad policies don't get my money.
comment in response to
post
Thanks for letting us know. _CANCELLED_
comment in response to
post
I got a refund, because Google Play is reasonable about this. Thanks Google for handling this correctly.
comment in response to
post
I see Elmo still has his human shield.
comment in response to
post
A faux Italian shooey.
comment in response to
post
They need him to be a genius because they cannot handle what it means for them to be tricked by a fool.
comment in response to
post
Every time I hear about data-leaker “Big Balls” I can’t help but feel like I’m in a Michael Scarn film.
comment in response to
post
But, uh could you give me an example of th- please don't block me, I'm kidding. :p (I just wanted to say hi fellow sorceress <3 )
comment in response to
post
I also use the em dash. And the en dash. Neither of which are hyphens. Or minus symbols. I know it's pedantic and all, but they had meaning, and they really still do, even if they aren't in use by most people. 🤷♀️
comment in response to
post
Smokey says controlled or prescribed fires, can help eliminate invasive species that can be harmful to the local environment
comment in response to
post
I recall many friends blithely saying the Chinese masses should rise up against the powerful military being used to oppress them; that Americans would never let an authoritarian dictator stand. Yet, already Americans are capitulating-from the Congress to the press to once respected litigators.
comment in response to
post
Android user here adding a voice the rest of the noise. I'd definitely use this app, and pay if necessary.
comment in response to
post
The future belongs to those who shape it. We can let AI and automation be yet another force that concentrates wealth and diminishes human potential, or we can intentionally build a world where technology enhances human creativity and dignity.
How do we do that? I don't know.
comment in response to
post
The goal should be ensuring everyone can live with dignity while still having opportunities for meaningful work. This might require reimagining our entire economic system, not just adding UBI to our current one.
comment in response to
post
UBI alone isn't enough - businesses would likely adjust prices and rents to capture that income stream, leaving people in the same or worse position. We'd need strong price controls, housing reform, and healthcare guarantees alongside UBI for it to work.
comment in response to
post
What could this look like? Perhaps tax incentives for companies maintaining creative positions. Maybe requirements that AI-driven cost savings partially fund human artistic and creative roles. Or new business models that blend AI efficiency with human creativity.
comment in response to
post
Here's the real challenge: we need to answer this question as a society. If we default to letting businesses decide, driven purely by profit motives, society loses. We need active policies and frameworks that protect creative work while embracing AI's benefits.
comment in response to
post
The key issue isn't technology - it's intent. Are we pursuing better quality and outcomes that benefit everyone? Or are we just cutting costs to benefit executives and investors while displacing workers? That's the difference between progress and exploitation.
comment in response to
post
Consider this: My company employs several graphic designers. If starting today, we'd likely use AI instead. This pattern isn't new - factories displaced local food sources, online stores replaced bookshops, Photoshop simplified graphic design work.
comment in response to
post
What concerns me is protecting fulfilling creative work - graphic design, painting, woodworking, writing. These aren't just jobs; they're avenues for human expression. AI itself won't actively discourage these pursuits, but corporations that control or use them might eliminate these human outputs.
comment in response to
post
While I love solving problems through code and systems, I know my future involves less direct coding and more AI interaction. I already build systems that give non-technical users access to AI capabilities. This evolution (for me) doesn't worry me - it's exciting.
comment in response to
post
The goal is to use AI wisely: to handle mundane tasks, spark innovation, and solve complex problems. But we must actively protect spaces where human creativity and craftsmanship thrive. This technology should expand our capabilities, not shrink our opportunities for meaningful work.
comment in response to
post
AI should tackle what's difficult or impossible, helping us live better lives, not act as another market force that strips away people's joy and security.
comment in response to
post
We must maintain this social stance, ensuring AI enhances rather than replaces meaningful work. Many people find deep fulfillment in creative and skilled labor - we shouldn't eliminate these opportunities for mere efficiency.
comment in response to
post
And I also have a good understanding of the business world. If we don't have to pay good artists to make good art, where do the artists go? There is a social pressure right now to have corporations pay graphic artists for their work, rather than jumping to generative models. Rightfully so.
comment in response to
post
Do not get me wrong: I'm a big fan of AI. I think it has a lot of good in store for us. But I also have a good understanding of human reality, where we'll often reach for what's easy instead of what's right.
comment in response to
post
Think about it like this: We already choose to drive two blocks instead of walking, letting convenience override what's better for us. Will AI become another way to avoid life's most basic experiences, or will we use it responsibly and in ways that truly improve our lives?
comment in response to
post
But this relationship, just like any other, depends entirely on the boundaries we set and follow today. Will we use AI to enhance and improve our human experience, or will we let it diminish it, making us complacent and lazy?