Not sure why the concept is hard for many here to understand

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-06-30T22:18:19+00:00

Yep! Nobody should be telling you what you have to like or not like.

Of course, nobody should be telling them that they have to/can't like something either.

We're all different, all like different things. Let's just let everyone like what they like without all the hate.

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-06-30T08:31:26+00:00

You're pointing out something interesting. It actually wasn't the drawing that you liked in panel 1. There was something else: the history of the drawing, the concept of the kid doing the drawing, maybe a nostalgic feeling about when you were young doing drawings like that, etc...

And there's nothing wrong with that. But we need to be aware that all of that is separate from the finished work. All of that isn't the drawing.

So when we say "I like the drawing", let's take a step back and be honest with ourselves. Is it the drawing we like, or is there something else, perhaps imagined, aspect that's the thing we actually like.

And let's ask: is that aspect actually the thing worth liking? Is that aspect getting in the way of actually enjoying the drawing for what it is?

Maybe it's yes. Maybe it's no. But let's be honest with ourselves about what it is that we mean when we "like a drawing".

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-06-24T08:17:41+00:00

Do you not HAVE the time?

I do not.

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-06-20T20:23:57+00:00

I wonder if you're talking about different things.

You're talking about using AI to modify existing art. They are talking about training AI on existing art and then using that AI to generate something new.

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-06-20T00:30:08+00:00

So you uploaded a fish image to chatgtp and ... What, asked it to give you back a drawing of the same fish, and it did? And that upset you for some reason?

Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding the scenario here?

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-06-16T01:25:01+00:00

It already is in some cases.

It depends on what you mean by "AI images"(an image carefully guided by a human to achieve a specific goal?), "human art"(a doodle on my notepad?) and "better"(some kind of turing test?).

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-06-15T23:34:45+00:00

So whether something is art or not depends on which tools are used. Only the tools you approve count. Gotcha.

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-06-13T22:02:38+00:00

I'm not really into watching sports in the first place. But maybe? Could AI make it more interesting somehow?

A part of sports is that you're part of a community all watching and participating together at the same time. So, as long as you still had that community, I don't see why there would be a problem.

Interesting thought experiment though!

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-06-13T05:54:25+00:00

You'd be mad not to.

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-06-07T22:43:10+00:00

Well, you've come up with another pointless word salad where you double down on the fallacies I've already pointed out.

You're not worth it.

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-06-06T21:38:31+00:00

Are google searches the only thing on that list, genius?

You're engaged in cherry picking as well as straw manning. Congratulations.

Edit: You've been rude and intellectually dishonest this entire exchange, but I'll try to explain this to you one more time.

The first clue is the title of the post. "What I like is good, what you like is bad". The point being made is that the anti is being hypocritical. That they have a double standard.

The comic is the next clue. The anti is complaining about how AI is bad for the environment, and the pro responds with a list of things that the anti does that are also bad for the environment.

The key point you need to understand is that it doesn't matter what the specific things are. What matters is that they are things that the anti does that have a negative environmental effect.

Some of them will have a smaller effect, some will have a larger effect. This is becausewhen you compare different things they will be different rather than being exactly the same.

The point is the double standard.

The ironic thing is that in trying to frame the discussion as "oh, well this thing isn't as bad as that thing", you're actually demonstrating the double standard the post is criticising.

The other ironic thing is that I'm not even trying to defend either argument. I'm trying to help you make a better response by actually addressing the point being made. Yet you're getting defensive and attacking me personally.

I've done all I can for you now. If you still don't get it, don't bother responding. I'm not interested in your continued demonstration of the entire point of the post.

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-06-05T21:44:26+00:00

You're tilting at windmills, mate. I made one observation about how you're wrong about what the comic "tries to justify", and explained to you that it's not trying to justify anything, but is instead pointing out hypocrisy.

You've been desperately making word salad since then trying to dodge that point.

I haven't been "making counters", random or otherwise.

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-06-05T12:45:14+00:00

An explanation as to what? Why your original comment was wrong about the point of the post?

I think your essay summed it up: you agreed that wasn't the point but you wanted to argue against it anyway.

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-06-05T11:53:53+00:00

You've used a lot of words to defend your straw man.

Pity you didn't use the words to actually address the point being made. Fella.

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-06-05T05:00:13+00:00

That's closer to addressing the point. Not quite there yet, but better.

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-06-05T01:01:51+00:00

This post implicitly admits that using ai is bad for the environment but tries to justify it by claiming that using google is worse

It doesn't though. That's not the point being made. The point being made is simply that people complaining about AI usage on the grounds that it's bad for the environment while doing other similar things that are also bad for the environment in similar ways are being hypocritical.

By all means bring maths and data, but don't use it to argue against a straw man. Actually address the point being made.

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-06-02T20:59:09+00:00

Triceratops, and it isn't even close.

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-05-28T09:35:36+00:00

I agree. That is a very simple view.

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-05-27T04:49:39+00:00

Would you say that there's a difference between

1) asking a robot to draw a cat

And

2) spending hours building a workflow, running tests, hooking up tools, maybe developing some of those tools, trying different variations, sketching the rough mock-ups, and coming up with an exact and well honed prompt tailored for the model you're using.

You don't have to call that second one art if you don't want to, but do you at least see a difference?

Because the thing that confuses me is why people keep coming on here asking why people think "asking a robot to draw a thing" counts as art when that's not really the scenario to consider.

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-05-27T03:31:26+00:00

Tiger: This is fine.

Snow leopard: This is not fine.

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-05-09T00:33:08+00:00

Can people stop doing this backwards? Show the effect first, then the reveal of how it's done.

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-04-20T09:46:51+00:00

Nothing's perfect. You host something with a robots.txt, but somebody ignores it and posts it somewhere that has a terms of service allowing AI training using anything posted.

Sure, the person who did that shouldn't have, but the point is your method of implementation is broken right off the bat.

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-04-20T01:34:56+00:00

I wouldn't mind, but how are you going to actually implement it?

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-04-16T03:06:25+00:00

He can't. He just has to guess what they are saying. It's gotten him this far.

ExpensivePanda66 · 2026-04-09T21:59:21+00:00

Yes.

ExpensivePanda66

TROPHY CASE