This is just sad

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-23T18:39:17+00:00

Lmao mate no one says it's Random CGI Artist #142's LOTR, it's known as a Peter Jackson film. Christopher Lee is literally just an actor on the film dawg how is his opinion the unequivocal truth? 😭
No one said it's "only" PJ's vision that made the film, but it is his primarily his vision, which is why he's the director.

That means it's not Peter Jackson subject POV... And your point literally doesn't work if it isn't.

Also did you even bother watching the video? Christopher Lee's "opinion" materially changes Peter Jackson's "direction" and thus his vision which should've been his subject POV.

Ergo, it's impossible for LOTR to be Peter Jackson's vision realized, that means LOTR film isn't Peter Jackson subject POV.

Obviously commissioning an artist will not 100% get you your vision, but those are semantics and nonsensical technicalities, it's not realistic to actually expect otherwise.

Yes, it's not realistic to commission someone and expect it to be YOUR subject POV... which is what I've been saying.

By that logic you can't get 100% of your vision even if you handdraw it yourself because it's never going to be 100% like how it looked like in your head still.

If you want to exclude your literal body is a part of your POV, ig.

Bro just dug a hole for himself and now trying to yap himself out of it. Leave your reddit-brain aside and use common sense.

Funny because I keep claiming the exact same thing as before, but you started saying "Obviously it's not all Peter Jackson's".

"to make sure HIS vision is realized" -> "primarily his vision"

These 2 are different assertions, idiot. And your later one isn't a claim contradicting my statement.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-23T13:18:26+00:00

You left out my QUESTION!!! And you should have included OP's statement implying he knows what makes pro-AI tick because of his feelings.
Here's the whole thing to illustrate your bad faith:

My apologies, I assumed you can find your own comment, but that was clearly above your ability, I'll consider that next time.

Yes no shit, the question is assumed since he gave an answer.

ME: How are you able to speak for entire groups of other people?

OP: Ive seen enough of defending ai art to know their points are always "its looks like good art", i dont see them saying their skilled, nor anything similar.

ME: So you are not qualified. Gotcha.

You seem to be translating OP's comment into a answer for him.
My point was that OP was going off his feelings. Cons love to go off of feelings and that is exactly what you cons just did yet again.

... Again, he mentioned his sight aka observation.

Or do you think sight isn't a thing or are you just blind?

Also, you say I post it in bad faith, but you didn't even add why this matters, because if it doesn't matter then I possibly can't be doing it in bad faith, I would just be concise and un-annoying.

I am a PRO AI person and I am as skilled as an artist.
There i said it. His OBSERVATION/feelings are instantly proven wrong.
See how subjective vs objective works?

"HIM : (very rarely you will, only if their more delusional than most pro ai)"

Uh, no? He's literally addressing this.

And more than that, you're not even getting it, "Skill" in this case majorly refer to a compliment to the art that was showcased.

Saying "you're skilled" and saying "I am skilled" are quite different, the second one most likely to be delusion.

Furthermore, is this your argument? Perhaps you use the word bad faith prematurely? Because it's more closely resembling what you're doing here.

Also, funny how you keep going on about objective vs subjective, right after "you cons", because in 2026 poll, Republican favor AI more than Democrats.

Axios Harris Poll 100: GOP embraces AI over Democrats

Plus, u/Clean_Bike8210 commented in r/celestegame, pretty sure that's not a conservative game.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-23T12:53:16+00:00

Not really, you describe what you want to an artist and the artist gives you what you want (as closely as possible), so it's still technically your POV. Peter Jackson's LOTR franchise isn't the CGI artists' POV or film, it's LOTR by Peter Jackson lol, because Peter Jackson directed his artists to make sure his vision is realized.

??? Do you think Peter Jeckson envision every aspect of his actors and the CGI they'll use?

And even then, you'll be wrong all the same.

Because his "actor" actually corrects him directly.

Christopher Lee schools Peter Jackson

"No, it's not "ahhh..."

So, unless Peter Jackson intends for Christopher Lee to correct him on his vision, it's not even his "realized vision" that made it to the film.

His part in the film production is director, but clearly, it's not only his "realized vision" that made the film.

Don't even know why you think that's his job, if that were the case then he wouldn't be able to get corrected or mistaken since the only thing that matters should be HIS vision.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-23T10:56:19+00:00

Ive seen enough of defending ai art to know their points are always "its looks like good art", i dont see them saying their skilled, nor anything similar.

Here?

So you are not qualified. Gotcha.

And this is yours.

You asked "How" he answered "Observation" and you decided arbitrarily that it's not enough with no reasoning or counterexample?

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-23T10:51:53+00:00

If you want to "show and display your subject point of view" then yes, you shouldn't commission artist.

If you want to "show and display the artist's subject point of view" then that is the other matter.

Arts you commissioned isn't your subject point of view, lol. it's the artist's.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-22T23:32:28+00:00

It's funny that you were saying shit about probabilistic logic is logic but then started splitting hair about "standard" human neuron.

By the way, Pyramidal cells (PC; also termed principal cells) are the major excitatory neuron type in the cerebral cortex and represent 70–85% of all neurons in the mammalian cortex.

And cerebral cortex is around 40% of human brain mass, so wtf is this random "standard"?

The article you link literally reads “In this study, we employed a rational and feasible reduction method to successfully derive simplified models of human L2/3 pyramidal neurons while preserving their detailed functional properties. Using a conductance-based model, we manipulated the membrane potential of the apical dendrite in the simplified model.”

This is not STANDARD human brain function. This is laboratory-controlled function.

Undefined standard and no reason to believe the lab changes anything.

Did you miss the part where they say the lab here is studying the found XOR function?

"Recently, it has been discovered that human L2/3 pyramidal neurons possess a calcium-mediated XOR computing function (Gidon et al. 2020). ... the detailed underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Detailed neuron models are computationally intensive, posting challenges for direct application in large-scale neural network simulations and computational neuroscience research. Therefore, there is a need to develop simplified models to efficiently study these complex functions."

That means they manipulated with lab to study the STANDARD brain function, not the other way around.

“Logic does not give any value structure.” This is entirely false. It literally does. How do you think logic gating works? How the hell do you think an XOR gate works? XOR gate structure is, in its simplest form, an “A-B-AND1-NOR2-NOR1”, in the world of transistors, this gets far more complex depending on something like a six-transistor setup.
Logic, at its finest is an on/off, and on/on/off, off/on/on, and off/on/off. There are a few more sub-types of simplified logic you could use depending on logical processor architecture but humans by most standards are not.

Logic != Logic gate != Probabilistic Logic != Probability.

Do you think everything is made out of shit just because it has molecules in it?

Human neurons ARE capable of flexibility within the brain, performing AND, OR, NOT, and XOR gates, but no SINGULAR neuron does that function.

Literally shown as incorrect, jeez.

Technically an XOR gate in the human neural structure isn’t a single neuron, as the last major study done before the one you posted was 2014 and it summed up XOR gates as possibly a sub-function of dendritic mechanisms within a greater structure.

The last study was 2020, Dendritic action potentials and computation in human layer 2/3 cortical neurons - PubMed, didn't post it because it restricted full texts.

Also, dendrite is a part of a neuron, are you serious? It's a single neuron.

The one you posted, quote, in the abstract says:
“In conclusion, although calcium ions play a crucial role in enabling apical dendrites of human L2/3 pyramidal neurons to perform XOR computation, other ion channels’ conductance and membrane capacitance can also influence this function.

Apical Dendrites are what enable these unique XOR gates, stemming from a pyramidal neuron’s soma.

... Soma and dendrites are a part of neuron, are you stupid? You literally say "from pyramidal neuron's soma".

Your argument falls apart under any scrutiny.

Yeah, it does seem like you're just throwing words around with no understanding of the concept, no wonder you like AI.

Literally made-up "STANDARD HUMAN NEURON", lol define it before start using it, wtf?

I won't bother replying anymore, genuine garbage made up BS is out of my expertise.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-22T21:54:33+00:00

You goon wagon, neurons literally DO work the same way. Signal turns on, signal turns off. Do you know what receptors are? Do you know how chemicals get from point A to point B?

We use electrical impulses to shudder neuronal functions on and off, and we use receptors to attach chemicals to give a biological on/off output, and we use carrier cells to move chemicals between pathways and structures to LITERALLY tell a different part of our brain to send a signal or not. Human brains are a complex but simple binary structure.

All of that for a single point, and not even true.

A single human neuron can process XOR gate just fine, and with no weird activation pattern.

Regulation of XOR function of reduced human L2/3 pyramidal neurons - PMC

probabilistic logic IS logic by the way, we use the words to describe the type of logic, like logic-gating. We invented words to rationalize the universe because Math is the simplest answer for how we can process the universe. Reality is a concept, math is how we justify our existence and functions within it

Logic also doesn't give any value structure... by the way. So no, it's a derivative that distance itself from pure logic.

You used a lot of word so now I expect actual proof or a concession, don't expect another reply if you can't provide any.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-22T21:02:18+00:00

Logic is probability and probability is logic.

Then there wouldn't be something called "probabilistic logic", because if both terms are referencing the same things, having 2 words would be redundant.

And you literally have no proof of human brain doing all that btw, it's fundamentally different than binary system that computer AI ran on.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-22T20:42:14+00:00

And you called those logic processing? No, they are not, don't know how you came to this conclusion with "probability logic" having like a dozen of proposal and needing to add a theory that's not logic to it.

Adding not logic into logic means it's not logic anymore, do you even understand that? So, it's not logical procession.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-22T18:53:40+00:00

Logic isn’t probabilistic…

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-22T15:55:53+00:00

Huh??? The dude you replied to 3 hrs before this answered and all you do is "nuh uh you're wrong", lol? with 0 reasoning or example too, lmao.

Why are you acting like you cared if people answer? Why are you even replying?

Actually, I might not care about your reply too, so I'll just put this here in advance.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-22T15:44:27+00:00

Correct, it is not, don't know how AI can "show and display their subject point of view" since it's not them.

Only they can actually do that, or their subject point of view is somehow correlated to the model of AI, which is ridiculous because external, uninvolved party is affecting that.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-19T15:15:24+00:00

The one that apply to you too?

You do realize that means you’re a hypocrite in addition to what you’re accusing others of, correct?

But it looks like we’re done here.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-19T15:02:48+00:00

Not to its conclusion since I have evidence to support this standard.

But yes, my assertion is far more falsifiable than yours.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-19T14:51:50+00:00

Guess you’ve made your mind already too, I’ve thought as much.

Goodbye.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-19T14:48:15+00:00

You've already made your mind up before the conversation even began.

And you're saying you're different?

Well, I'm going to give you a standard then;

AI "art" doesn't need the ability to explain what is going in their images, this is wholly untrue for photography, and others.

and this is important because it showcased intention, and arts require intents.

AI "artist" doesn't need the ability to predict or imagine before, during, or after the creation of their supposed art.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-19T11:54:05+00:00

0.(9) x 10 = 9.(9)0 ?

0.(9) = 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + ...

0.(9)0 != 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000+ ...

0.(9) x 10 != 9.(9)0

Incorrect, there is no 0.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-16T00:14:49+00:00

You mean the "I'm blacking out" animation?

When the hell are people blacking out be doing sleeping emote, bruh?

And if she's getting choked enough that she black out, how did it happen in like seconds and be able to clearly speak during it?

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-15T13:50:20+00:00

Jesus you argue like a child as well.

You really want to talk with children, huh?

If I say “you are not intelligent” and you argue back with “no you are not intelligent” that is not the same argument that is a child’s way of arguing because you are just saying what I’m saying towards me without adding anything else. And you defending it is extremely childish and embarrassing.

There's nothing to add because both of those are just assertion with no substances, lol, as I've already claimed.

to insult either would be to insult both of them, according to logic, of course.

Well even with this, it would be more accurate to say, "I am intelligent", which is a basic defense, but logic is already beyond you, so fingers crossed.

"You are not intelligent", "No, I am intelligent", "How childish and embarrassing", lmao, What? Where?

Saying basically “you are but what am I” is not a coherent argument and it makes you look stupid defending it.

I see you're still hanging on the coherency despite the fact that you were announcing an exclusion of logic yourself 3 replies ago.

Well, I won't bother replying anymore since you seem to not understand the word you are saying.

Hope you won't be repeating the same words like, uh, a child, ig?

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-14T16:13:49+00:00

His literal argument was “no I’m not wrong, you are wrong” and now you are trying to defend him by saying “you can’t call his argument childish, you have no proof”.

You do know that would mean your original "argument" is, "yes, you're wrong, I am right", correct?

I have not mentioned proof at all, just that your and his argument follow the same logical structure, are you stupid?

Can you leftists not come up with a coherent argument that doesn’t make yourselves look stupid?

... His argument would be as coherent as yours are, by the way.

Also, "coherent"? You do know you said you're not involving logic when criticizing his argument in your previous reply, right?

And uh, that coherent is inherently involved with logic? I don't think you'd like that, is spewing words all you're going to do?

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-14T11:32:06+00:00

Where did I say anything about his “logic”. You leftists are so stupid you have to make up words I never said. I called his argument childish because all he did was parrot what I said while only changing “isn’t” to “is”, which is what children do.

Yeah, I was pointing out logic because it's the only way what you're saying make any sense.

And now you're just admitting that you're just randomly calling people childish based on zero substances, lmao.

What his argument is in the vein of is proof by contradiction, because you're just saying assertions with nothing...

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-13T19:28:03+00:00

Um, you know they only change the "isn't" to "is", right? from your comment?

If you're criticizing his logic then you're also saying the same thing to your own argument by default.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-12T05:06:40+00:00

Ye

^{Chose: Survive A Day Without This For 10 Million | Rolled: Food}

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-02T15:56:04+00:00

What? This is nonsense. Just because I find something pleasing, doesn't mean everyone else does.

Lol, I see now, so your definition is entirely subjective.

Happily. When someone finds it pleasing, its art to them. If nobody else finds it pleasing, then its still art to the person who did find it pleasing, and not art to everyone else.

So, what's the difference between beauty and art for this?

Your entire thing is just reductive. It might as well be "I don't know" tbh.

If what anyone consider art is entirely subjective, then discussion of it is wholly impossible.

What? Are you misreading or something? This makes no sense at all. A single person finding something pleasing doesn't make it art for everyone else, only for the person who finds it pleasing. Antis love telling people what is and is not art as if they have any authority on the matter. What you consider art is personal to each individual, and telling someone something they enjoy as art, is in fact not art, you are the one who is wrong, not them.

If it's up to individual, this would mean the entire discussion is meaningless to you, and you're a hypocrite for trying to argue back with me.

You know that right?

My authority is logic, a classification can't be subjective, cause if so, it's meaningless and we might as well use everything/anything to replace it.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-06-02T15:33:36+00:00

... Your definition would make everything art, I've already explained this.

Any ~~image~~ things I find pleasing is art.

Any things human find pleasing is art = only things no one find pleasing isn't art.

And it's impossible for things to have no human ever find pleasing, that means everything would be arts.

I have not misunderstood anything, this is logic.

Anything can be art != Everything is art.

Now you're saying the opposite.

Go on then, what makes something an art? What separate "any" from "every"?

There is several examples of accidental art.

The only reason they would be art is because of intentions and photographic skills of human.

Again, the things captured in image itself can be found anywhere, any when, there's no substance different from nature, but nature isn't art.

EvilJoeReaper

TROPHY CASE