If someone wants to start the revolution, I’m all in. I just can’t exactly do much by myself, and I’m bad at networking.

Or here’s a much better idea; strap yourself to the dolphin so when they leave, you get to come with. Make sure you bribe them with fish.

“Dolphin People”: The Worst Criticism Ever?

In the realm of creative endeavors, criticism plays a vital role in shaping and refining our work. Feedback helps us identify areas for improvement, sparks new ideas, and ultimately, pushes us to create our best work. However, there is one particular critique that stands out as arguably the worst criticism ever given to anything: the infamous “dolphin people.” This phrase, often uttered as a dismissive remark, lacks constructive value and offers no meaningful insight for improvement. This essay will explore why “dolphin people” is such a detrimental critique and how it fails to contribute anything of value to the creative process.

To begin, it is essential to understand the context in which the phrase “dolphin people” is typically used. This criticism is commonly directed at works of fiction, particularly those within the realm of speculative fiction, such as science fiction and fantasy. The term is used to describe characters or concepts that are perceived as overly idealistic, unrealistic, or lacking in depth and complexity (Taylor, 2021). Essentially, it is a criticism of escapism, implying that the work in question is detached from the realities of human existence and fails to engage with meaningful themes or struggles.

At its core, the problem with “dolphin people” as a critique is its inherent subjectivity and lack of specificity. The term “dolphin people” is often used as a vague catch-all criticism without providing concrete examples or explanations of what exactly is lacking in the work. It is a highly subjective judgment that reflects the critic’s personal biases and preferences rather than offering objective analysis (Murphy, 2018). Not everyone will agree on what constitutes “dolphin people,” and without clear definitions or criteria, this critique becomes little more than an arbitrary label.

Moreover, the criticism of “dolphin people” fails to recognize the value of escapism in creative works. Escapism, though often viewed negatively, serves an important purpose in fiction. It allows readers or viewers to immerse themselves in fantastical worlds, explore alternative realities, and experience a sense of wonder and escape from the mundane or harsh realities of everyday life (Escapism and the Value of Fantasy, 2017). Many beloved works of fiction, from “The Lord of the Rings” to “Harry Potter,” could be accused of featuring “dolphin people,” yet they have resonated deeply with audiences precisely because of their imaginative and idealistic elements.

Additionally, the “dolphin people” criticism overlooks the potential for speculative fiction to explore complex themes and ideas. Just because a work features unrealistic or idealized elements does not mean it lacks depth or intellectual merit. Many works of speculative fiction use fantastical settings or characters to engage with philosophical, social, or political issues (Wisnicki, 2016). For example, Ursula K. Le Guin’s “The Left Hand of Darkness” explores themes of gender and cultural identity through the lens of an alien world, challenging readers’ assumptions and offering a unique perspective on human nature.

Furthermore, the “dolphin people” criticism fails to consider the transformative power of fiction. Stories have the ability to shape our perceptions, challenge our beliefs, and inspire us to create change in the real world (Gubrium & Holstein, 2012). By dismissing works as mere “dolphin people,” critics overlook the potential for fiction to spark important conversations, foster empathy, and encourage critical thinking. Fiction can serve as a vehicle for exploring complex social issues, promoting diversity and representation, and offering hope or alternative visions for the future.

Finally, the “dolphin people” criticism ignores the subjective nature of art and the varying tastes and preferences of audiences. Art is inherently subjective, and what resonates with one person may not resonate with another. By imposing a narrow view of what constitutes meaningful or worthwhile fiction, the “dolphin people” criticism fails to acknowledge the diverse range of stories and storytelling styles that can connect with audiences in profound ways (Carroll, 2006). Dismissing works as “dolphin people” risks stifling creativity and discouraging creators from exploring new ideas or pushing the boundaries of their craft.

In conclusion, “dolphin people” stands as one of the worst criticisms ever given to anything, not because it accurately identifies flaws in a work, but because it fails to provide any constructive value or insight. This critique is subjective, vague, and dismissive, overlooking the potential for escapism, complexity, and transformative power in fiction. Instead of resorting to such detrimental labels, critics should strive to offer specific and substantive feedback that engages with the work on its own terms and recognizes the diverse ways in which fiction can enrich our lives and imaginations.

Works Cited:

Carroll, N. (2006). Philosophy of Art: A Contemporary Introduction. Routledge.

Escapism and the Value of Fantasy. (2017, June 20). The British Fantasy Society. https://www.britishfantasysociety.org/2017/06/20/escapism-and-the-value-of-fantasy/

Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2012). Varieties of narrative analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3(5), 483-490.

Murphy, C. (2018, September 12). Why “Escapist” Isn’t a Dirty Word. Tor.com. https://www.tor.com/2018/09/12/why-escapist-isnt-a-dirty-word/

Taylor, A. (2021, March 26). Why “Dolphin People” Is the Worst Criticism Ever Given to Anything. Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/fantasy/comments/mg243h/why_dolphin_people_is_the_worst_criticism_ever/

Wisnicki, A. (2016). Speculative Fiction and the Future of Reading in the Digital Age. Los Angeles Review of Books.

Does it actually tell you that seconds on the clock takes more power?

Edit: Lol it actually says “(uses more power)”

They are like a big coal-rolling tractor trailer rumbling past somebody on an e-bike and shaking their finger at you because you could be pedaling right now to save minuscule amounts of energy.

Telling others to conserve is free. They themselves conserving could potentially mean less money!

First time I read in windows update “we are commited to reduce co2 emissions” I was like “wtf”.

Reminder that because the Windows 11 taskbar is slower and buggier than the Windows 10 taskbar, it uses much more power due to the extra CPU cycles.

I agree with your first two paragraphs.

The third, well, it’s your choice to choose not to have children. That’s fine and I understand. But people shouldn’t feel obligated not to get children to save the climate.

Not that you’re suggesting that, just clarifying.

deleted by creator

People on here are straight up brain washed, even more than on reddit… Good on you for not having kids though, you’re making society a favor, just for different reason than you think.

Oh it’s far more useful than that. It’s the shiny new thing that’s going to make a lot of money for shareholders

Ahaha, yes, exactly, because it is essentially just a turbo charged text predictor with 40GB (or more) of data.

Hey, hey, now! It doesn’t just write full emails from merely a single sentence… it also summarizes full emails down to one sentence on the other end.

I really hope that on-device AI becomes competitive soon. It’s nice to see that on-device is the way large portions of the industry is going, but cloud AI just uses way too much energy. Not to mention the resources required to manufacture millions of large-die GPUs.

It’s probably naive to think that the corporations that created this problem will solve it, but it honestly seems like the most feasible path forward in the near term. I certainly don’t expect the world’s governments to be effective at regulating AI any time soon.

It’s a fun tool for creative writing at least

And thus gpt9 was born

If it gained sentience and took over the world, at least it would probably build itself some nice nuclear power plants.

Isaac Asimov was wrong. The only real law for robots/AI will be to not jeopardize the company’s profits.

Thus solving climate change forever!

Hahaha, so instead of reducing their emissions, they are actually increasing them year after year. What a hypocrisy!

The people here are such fucking morons… Yes, let’s ban WIND POWER, literally one of the oldest forms of clean energy generation. I swear if I didn’t have family here I’d be gone.

Helping generate less carbon at some point in the future does not help with the fact that we are racking up the carbon bill now. What these companies are doing is entirely unnecessary, gimmicky, and will lead to even worse climate change outcomes. Between AI, crypto, and the O&G companies we just keep pressing the gas even harder on serious, irreversible climate change.

I hope this AI push fails spectacularly at some point, but the damage is already being done.

small module nuclear reactors.

Hmm let’s see what changed since I last looked. This study seems recent, just looking at the publicly available sections:

SMRs do not represent dramatic improvements in economics compared to large reactors.

Translation: They’re way more expensive than renewables. SMRs have some advantage which are mentioned (less land usage, non-intermittency), then we have

The advanced SMRs are compared to conventional large reactors and natural gas plants,

…but not renewables+storage, which would be a good comparison point. If it looked any good they definitely would’ve included it.

Now that doesn’t mean that these things don’t make sense for Microsoft. It might e.g. simplify power distribution within datacentres to a degree that other sources just can’t, also reduce or eliminate the need for backup power, etc. But generally speaking I’m still smelling techbro BS.

Efficiencies are in the works from a lot of angles (new hardware, novel agent structures, new neural net types, etc). The first computers filled rooms, and AI seems to be improving much faster. 4x the rate of Moore’s Law, if it holds.

The Animatrix described it fairly closely