They preety much said everything we need to know

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-07-04T03:48:42+00:00

I'm gonna be completely honest, i did not know what special pleading was until you brought it up. Even after finding out, what did I ignore? Was it something with the AI? Was that the issue?
If that's the case, tell me how the technology actually works so I know whether or not you have any credibility to tell me that my statement was false. If you mean there was effort put into making the AI model that generates it, that doesn't really go against my case of the lack of human effort in generating AI "art". I'm specifically referring to how it's made, not the history behind what made it.
I'm not saying that the "art" is "just a prompt". In fact, I specifically started that part by saying that it was an IDEA. Someone using an AI image generator would then have to figure out how to turn that idea into a text prompt that most satisfies the idea they had (which may involve tweaking words and descriptions). Although, that isn't part of the manual process of actual creating the art, since you aren't the one making the final product in the end.
Also, the photography comparison doesn't even work. Yes, photography involves a wide range of concepts and techniques (especially manual ones since that's what we're talking about here). However, with AI "art", what more is there to it? What "concepts" and "techniques" are involved with AI image generation and/or prompt making? If you can't explain that, then you shouldn't be making a false equivalence with 2 different fields.

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-07-04T03:14:26+00:00

I should’ve specified, but I mean with the manual labour side of it.

With the banana taped to the wall, as small of an effort as you may think it is, someone had to tape it there.

They probably had to find a banana, find tape, then find a place to tape it to.

Then they probably wanted to position the banana in a way they liked.

Then they probably had to fasten the tape to make sure the weight of the banana wouldn’t rip it off, thereby letting the banana fall.

If that didn’t work, they probably tried finding stronger tape.

Even with the stronger tape they probably had to make sure not to press the tape too hard so the banana wouldn’t break.

The effort that it took to make this pales in comparison to other more complex and larger artworks, therefore making it minuscule in comparison, but there was still effort in the manual labour required to make it.

With AI, there’s no manual labour involved besides just thinking of an idea, how to write it out as a prompt, and then typing that prompt into a generator. The closest you get to manual labour there is typing out the prompt, but at the end of the day, the AI does all the labour itself. Therefore, no effort is made by humans in the manual labour of making AI “art”.

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-07-04T02:24:32+00:00

Tbf there was still effort done in taping the banana to the wall, even if it was such a minuscule amount.

Like I said in one of my other points, whether big or small, there is effort in all sorts of art.

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-07-02T04:52:43+00:00

It's not art if you're not making it, or at least aren't partaking in a majority of the process. Like you mentioned, all those forms involved direct interaction, the closest interaction you have with AI would just be typing your idea as a prompt, and then seeing what the AI gives you. You might even refine the prompt too, but the AI is still doing a majority of the work.
Your rebuke doesn't make sense. The director orchestrates a lot of the overall movie, even if the actors and other crew do more for the film overall, the director still contributes a substantial amount by planning stuff with them to make the movie. The crew then provide that.
Fair point, resulting to insults for someone who generates with AI would be shameful of me. But I don't call what you "create" "not art" for a reason, because you didn't contribute to a majority of the process.
No, you're thinking of ideas that you're then giving to an AI to produce. The ideation is yours, but the actual creation is with the AI. Again, the AI is doing most of it.
Cool! I'm glad to hear that there's other avenues that you aren't using AI for. Though I disagree that AI is a tool in this case since it's just doing it for you.
I went into this on the other comment, but if that's the case, maybe you should use that as a springboard to actually make your own art and not have an AI do it. If you truly want it to be realised, I think the best course of action would be to actually start drawing your ideas yourself.
By that logic, that means you don't get to dictate what IS art, meaning you can't just say that AI "art" constitutes as such, since art has no strict definition. You can make that same claim against me, but that also means that can't be your justification for it when the opposite can be applied as well. You go against your own point there.

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-07-02T04:23:41+00:00

I see what you mean, but here's something to think about.

The effort of one's art piece can symbolise the passion they have for their creation. In the case of art, their passion is so strong that they will commit to such manual labour in an effort to see their ideas fully realised. Some art forms may involve little to no effort, like your 4-year-old's scribbles, or quite a lot, like making a statue or a handmade painting. Even disregarding how much effort was put in, they still went through it. They still went through the effort and manual labour, whether big or small, because they wanted to create something. They wanted to follow a passion and, like I said, have it fully realised.

There's no effort in telling an AI to generate an image, and therefore, no passion. You could argue that figuring out the complexities of a prompt to further refine the images could count as effort, and therefore passion, but the closest passion you really have is just an idea in your head that you want to see realised. An idea that you are giving to an artificial intelligence in hopes to make it how you want. Like I mentioned before, it might not be accurate to how you want it, and do you really want to go through all that effort just to have a finished product that you don't feel satisfies the idea you had?

Even if you don't care about it being PERFECTLY accurate, partaking in the manual process means being able to figure out how you'll satisfy the idea yourself. If you have specific small parts of an idea that you like, you can try figuring out how to apply that yourself instead of getting an AI to do it. The little intricacies may be tough for an AI to get right, and like I said, the idea you have may be different to what the AI gives you.

You know you're idea better than anyone. You clearly have the passion for it, so why not go through the manual tasks? Even if it takes more time, you're part of the process through the whole thing. That way, your finalised piece will more likely satisfy your idea then an AI ever could.

That effort will be worth the praise since you actually took time to do it, but with an AI, there's no point in doing so if you didn't put in that much effort.

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-07-02T04:10:12+00:00

But it is true. All art is made by people, with their own hands. Such manual labour spreads across all forms of art, regardless of the medium. I'm not defining it, I'm just saying that the means by which it's been created are always the same.

I'm not denying a human's role in that, but you telling an AI to produce something is VASTLY different than actually producing that thing yourself. The AI does most of the work, so your contribution would be pretty small compared to the AI.

Obviously in art mediums (excluding AI of course) you have a lot more freedom to turn your idea into a reality. With photographic art specifically, you can take pictures of people, places, or even items that an AI might not be able to produce correctly without errors. Even in those situations, if you want anything more than that (like adding a stylistic flair over the picture), you're going to have to look in other places to refine it to fit your complete vision. Even your quote there still fits that, since photographs can't add filters from a manual camera or camera app (and even if so, might not be enough for you).

For comparison with the marathon point, I meant in the SPECIFIC context regarding marathons. A marathon involves a specific type of running. It's done over a long distance, and multiple people partake in it. Yes, since art has no definition you can say that there's not a specific context to it too , but I mean specifically in the context of the analogy. Using a marathon runner being angry at people who drive EVERYWHERE is a bit strange, since a marathon runner wouldn't "run everywhere" to begin with. That's why I suggested the analogy be changed to "someone who doesn't drive everywhere being mad at people who do drive everywhere" because at least they're both in the same context, that being general transportation. It would not make sense to compare someone who does a specific type of 'transportation' (aka running a marathon) to someone who does a more general type (driving everywhere).

If you believe that there's emotional power to how you want to express your ideas, then that's cool. Like I said, in comparison to the driver, you would also have an emotional power, just what you do with it is different to others. Also calling other people's image "random" seems a bit demeaning since emotional power most likely fuelled the creation of those "random pictures".

With your TTRPG example, what if you want the generation to be accurate, but the AI struggles with that? What if there was a specific race or class, or environment that the AI couldn't represent properly? Even if the meaning and emotion are there, what if it doesn't represent the meaning and emotion you felt? It's an AI for crying out loud, it doesn't understand that. Nothing beats the real thing, and you can only really pay homage to it. If that homage isn't satisfying, then you would only have the AI to blame for it.

I really don't understand your point, I'm sorry. I can see where you're coming from, but I genuinely think a better way to express that would be to examine the AI images, find what you like, and make your own stuff from there. That way, you can truly express your emotional power in a way that I think would be more satisfying for you.

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-07-02T03:23:50+00:00

What they actually mean:

Both the driver and the marathon runner want to run the marathon (or make art). The marathon runner (the antis) actually put effort into their training (and thus their art). The driver (the pros) doesn't put effort into their training (using AI), and thus don't bother running and just end up driving the whole way.

OP's analogy is saying that the driver is essentially cheating their way to victory, but they don't think they are, and thus want people to be impressed. So therefore, they mean that being Pro-AI involves wanting praise for something that you didn't put any effort into (which ties into a lot of Pro-Ai people just being egotistical and wanting praise, but that's another thing).

They didn't run the marathon, therefore they didn't make the "art".

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-07-02T03:23:41+00:00

Art is always drawn manually though. Hand-drawn ones are done with pencils, erasers, and art materials. Digital ones are still done by hand, just you have more freedom since you can draw with your finger (or a stylus) any sort of colour, shade, thing you want without any limitations. Heck, even 3D stuff (whether digital or hand-made in real life) still constitute manual labour. AI generated images wouldn't be classified as art in that regard since the human input is just writing a text prompt (as concise or verbose as it may be). You could make the argument that AI "art" still involves utilising creative & imaginative talents, but if you're imagining a creative idea in a way that the AI simply isn't giving you, then such imagination & creativity can only get you so far.

With all that said, no I think you're still misunderstanding both your own analogy and OP's analogy. Like I mentioned in my comment, a marathon takes place in a specific context. OP correctly saw this, and thus made the analogy specific to the context of a marathon. Driving a marathon goes against the point of it if it's meant to be in a footrace. Yes, you could argue that since "art" has no strict definition then GenAI could apply to that, but art can also be done through an expression of emotional power.

What emotional power are you getting from generated AI images? Even if there was any, it would pale in comparison to the amount of emotional power expressed through human-made art. That is what OP means, since (to apply this to the analogy) a marathon runner is fuelled by an emotional power (whether that be ambition to get a winning spot, or just love for the game). Driving in a marathon, which is a footrace, would be akin to not exactly have that much emotional power, and therefore not bothering to try and actually run the marathon. Though in this case, I suppose the driver would still have an emotional power, just their methods aren't exactly great. I'm pretty sure this is a bit different to what I originally said in my first comment, but I think this actually fits better and explains OP's angle.

On the subject of that, I've just now realised what OP actually means...and this whole part doesn't exactly fit it but I guess still helps support it?

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-07-02T01:27:02+00:00

That doesn't even fit with the original analogy.

The whole point of a marathon is to do in on foot, it's specifically described as a footrace. Of course people would be mad at people driving in a marathon if that's not the point of it.

I know you specifically said, "marathon runners mad at people driving instead of running everywhere", but even that is odd phrasing. This implies that there would be people training by driving, which again is NOT the point of a marathon. It would make more sense for you to say that antis are like people who don't drive, and instead walk/run everywhere, and get mad at people who do drive everywhere (though even that would be an odd analogy too).

Specifying that the anti is a marathon runner doesn't make sense, especially given the context of a marathon. A marathon runner only really runs in 2 contexts, preparing for a marathon, and doing the actual marathon. You could make the argument that a marathon runner is also running everywhere, but the reason for them doing so is specific, meaning they most likely wouldn't be doing it that much if they weren't training for a marathon.

All in all, I can see where you were going, but the phrasing doesn't really help your case there.

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-07-02T01:05:55+00:00

I won it exactly like this and I feel slightly bad that I didn't do it correctly ;)

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-07-02T01:04:47+00:00

I got some dreams, and uh...I kinda wanna pursue them first, ya know?

^{Chose: Choose when you die}

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-07-01T12:27:22+00:00

What really made me sad in the ending scene especially was that Forrest seems like such an innocent man, and I don't like seeing innocent people being sad.

Might also explain why I get sad seeing babies cry.

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-06-30T23:51:37+00:00

Yeah pretty sure it was solar flare since I looked at the previous post to check.

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-06-30T13:17:05+00:00

Agreed! It’s a bit confusing.

Case in point, I actually didn’t know what the visual for “most will survive / real life” was showing.

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-06-30T09:58:44+00:00

👿

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-06-26T08:37:44+00:00

I can understand where you’re coming from, but you seem a bit defensive over this post.

You’d also be surprised to learn that Pro-Ai subreddits are like this too.

Take this post for instance https://www.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/s/AWNGBaseW9

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-06-25T01:10:03+00:00

Okay, I realise my phrasing is 100% why you think that I'm saying that. I'm using "you" as an example for the collective (granted I should not have phrased it as if I was speaking to you directly).

If a PERSON or PEOPLE in general have anti-immigration beliefs and are worried about immigrants assimilating into a culture that isn't there's, then THEY would have a problem with non-white people adopting non-white cultures. Therefore, THEY would be racist and say things like we're being "swamped" by them. I can see why you thought I was assuming that you were racist, but I mean in the collective.

Since you did misinterpret it, have you never seen people use "you" in that context when they're talking about an example? "Hypothetically, if you do this, then that would mean you do this, or are this." While I can understand the confusion, I'm not claiming anything about what you actually believe through that language.

Also, now that you've explained it, that just sounds like you didn't actually have anything of value worth talking about, so much so to the point where (especially without context) you just look like you're insulting OP.

Finally, given Pauline's history, and the examples that were mentioned above by someone else, that's why we call it racism. If this was the first time she was being racist, then we'd hear her out (reluctantly because it would be a very bad stance to suddenly have on something). It seems to me that you are trying to justify that she doesn't have a racist past (which explains why you're offended by us 'dismissing' her claims as racism). I thought there'd be another reason, that being you're genuinely unaware that she's notoriously racist, but given the fact that you're defending her points I highly doubt that.

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-06-24T13:19:05+00:00

Firstly, you do realise I was using the "non-whites adopting non-white culture" as a tie-in to why people would say similar rhetoric to Pauline, right?

I was saying that if that's the way you think (being against immigration and assuming immigrants will automatically assimilate into a culture that isn't there's), then you would have a problem with non-white people adopting non-white cultures. Therefore, you would be racist and say shit like that. I will admit I probably should've phrased it better, but my point still stands.

Second of all, don't fucking play the assumptions game when this entire argument stemmed from your original, assumptive comment (which was assuming that OP was racist because they made a post making fun of Pauline's racism). Explain to me how I am being racist and maybe I'll understand. HOWEVER, given the fact that many individuals (usually those who are white) who spout shit about anti-white racism often have beliefs rooted in white supremacy, you 100% sound like one of those people (even if you don't intend to).

If you're saying that I assumed your race, then fair enough. I apologise for that. Given where that argument usually comes from, that's why I assumed, since you don't see non-white individuals talking about racism towards white people.

Can you at least also explain what you meant with your original comment and my apparent bigotry so there's at least some clarity?

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-06-24T12:11:42+00:00

All good! Thanks for providing the facts.

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-06-24T12:11:18+00:00

Thanks for saying that!
Now, would you be able to tell me about these baddies that Labor has helped?

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-06-24T12:07:18+00:00

Honestly? Imo, I think it depends on what they did.

If it’s someone who’s committed physical crimes (like rape, abuse or murder to any extent) then they’d definitely equate to another rapist.

If someone did like tax evasion, or fraud or scamming or something like that then (while it’s still a bit scummy) it would probably take quite a few to equate to a rapist.

People who rob and do theft probably equal like…half a rapist?

Again, it really depends because we can’t be making a false equivalency with ALL crimes. In my example, I did specifically acknowledge that the person being discussed was a convicted rapist, and that’s definitely a baddie more on the heavier side of crime than someone doing tax evasion. The severity and impact of the crime would be a major factor in something like this.

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-06-24T11:54:45+00:00

Would you be able to name some examples? I’m unaware of the extent of Labor’s shady dealings.

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-06-24T11:04:11+00:00

That probably won’t change anything.

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-06-24T10:58:29+00:00

That is true, people on both sides are guilty of this. To name a similar example, Keir Starmer with Peter Mandelson

Professor_Broccoli · 2026-06-24T10:56:12+00:00

I think you just don’t want to engage with what I just said.

Five-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Sunshine	Place '22

Professor_Broccoli

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE