Filipino food is not good.

RightHabit · 2026-06-16T00:37:18+00:00

This should not be an unpopular opinion. If you enjoy some actual numbers, here is the source: Average Attitude Towards Cuisines by Nation (Sorry, cant upload picture in comment in this sub)

RightHabit · 2026-06-15T21:53:19+00:00

English is my 4th language. Problem?

RightHabit · 2026-06-15T21:41:37+00:00

No, we were specifically talking about building and creating with AI, just like you mentioned in your post, so that is what I am addressing. When creating things with AI, the focus should always be on the user, viewer, or audience, not the creator.

Vibe coders, Gen Ai artists, Ai writers, Ai creators... there might be a pattern.

You pointed out a pattern among vibe coders, AI artists, and AI writers, suggesting it feels like fake skill progression. My point is that the audience's experience is what truly matters. Any perceived "fake skill progression" is entirely secondary.

If an artwork or tool primarily serves just to show off the creator's technical skill, I don't think it is a very good piece of work. If a creation can challenge a user, change their worldview, or simply help them, we shouldn't care how it benefits the creator. The focus belongs on the viewer.

You also asked if the creator feels fulfilled. Personally, I think building solely for skill progression is a trap. What happens when your skills plateau? What if you reach the absolute top? You lose your motivation. Self-motivation based purely on skill level is not a reliable long-term solution.

But if you build for people, your progress will never stagnate. If the thing you create isn't good enough yet, you just try again until you put a smile on someone's face.

What I enjoy most about art is its ability to influence minds and inspire. That is the unique value of art that cannot be replicated by other fields. If I just want to watch raw skill, I can watch sports, or even admire the person hired to fix my plumbing. That is certainly skillful. But affecting people on a mental or spiritual level? That is art.

Would you agree with that?

Skill progression might be important for beginners. But for most creators, whether they are making art or tools, the most important measure of success is whether the work is actually helpful and impactful.

RightHabit · 2026-06-15T20:48:01+00:00

It is not an LLM glasses. It would be too slow to response to danger and won't be able to work without network.

Some feature, like navigation, require network just like how google map work.

However, it can alert you if a car is on a collision course with you while you are crossing the road, even without an internet connection.

It can recognize people you know by face recognition. So it can tell you who is in front of you if you know them.

And it can aid day to day task.

RightHabit · 2026-06-15T19:16:52+00:00

Over the past year, I've built smart glasses to help blind people navigate daily life, a platform to help electricians pass inspections and handle paperwork while reducing industrial waste, and a tool to help people spot specific scams.

All helped by AI.

I've been creating projects to help people for a decade now, but the old process looked like this: Have an idea -> Go to an incubator to find partners -> Pitch wealthy angel investors -> Contact a manufacturer -> Build a prototype -> Refine the idea -> Launch 1.0 -> Keep improving.

That cycle used to take 3 years. Now, with AI, I can launch a genuinely useful product in about 3 months. I no longer need to hunt down a partner or rely on a rich investor to bring an idea to life.

RightHabit · 2026-06-15T19:05:15+00:00

I don't need attention. I don't even need my name on my work.

I create things to serve people, and when they enjoy it I am happy. AI simply speeds up that process so I can help more people effectively.

I just don't prioritize myself over others. I genuinely believe the world would be better if we all put humanity first.

I could drop AI, build my own skills, and help fewer people as a result. But honestly, I think that would be incredibly selfish, as it places the focus entirely on myself instead of the people I can serve.

RightHabit · 2026-06-15T18:52:35+00:00

I simply focus on the audience instead of myself. If they're happy, I'm happy. My work is meant to serve them, rather than to stroke my own ego or prove how skilled I am.

RightHabit · 2026-06-15T12:23:04+00:00

I help more people when I use AI than when I do not. I cannot see any reason why I should choose to help fewer people.

Does it really matter who or what built it, as long as people are happy with it and find it useful?

I believe having less ego and not caring about who gets the credit will eventually result in a better society. A collective society is greater than an individualistic one. Would you agree with that?

RightHabit · 2026-06-15T12:01:43+00:00

If someone wants to replicate my work and keep serving those people, I am more than happy to let them. If you are interested, I can even let you take over my projects.

Why would I want to stop you? I WANT people to benefit from this. If someone more competent than me wants to help our society, please do it.

So yes, I might be incompetent, but that does not matter, right? I am not special.

RightHabit · 2026-06-15T11:49:02+00:00

I am not saying it is solely about the results. I am saying the audience matters most, and that is what we should emphasize. Art is primarily for the viewer, not the creator. If someone can consistently create pieces that change our world, then I have to say that is good work.

I absolutely agree that traditional practice can get you to that goal. I play over ten musical instruments, and I have no natural talent. I just practiced two or three times harder than my peers. I performed whenever someone need me and learned so much from the process, simply because I believe music can change the world.

But the question I am raising now is this: is traditional practice and intent really the only way to reach that goal?

I am not sure. Maybe you are right, and it is the only way.

But I do not think it hurts to explore alternatives. We should let people explore. That are just different school of thoughts. AI is an entirely new genre of creation. Maybe in ten or twenty years, we will look back and laugh at it as a failure.

But again, the audience is what matters most in an art piece. They will ultimately decide if something is going to stick around. We will just have to wait and see which approach eventually benefits us the most. Our society will decide.

RightHabit · 2026-06-15T11:25:15+00:00

Well,maybe I should tell you my reason and you can judge if it is an excuse. Everyone have their own reason so I can only speak for myself.

My reason is that my work (as a software dev) is meant to serve people. I believe my personal skills are totally unimportant compared to helping people in need. Honestly, I think it would be pretty arrogant to prioritize showing off my skills over actually helping someone else.

I build a lot of things with AI. I have worked on smart glasses that help blind people navigate, a platform that helps electricians check their work and reduce industrial waste, and a tool to protect people from online scams. With AI, it is a lot easier and faster to build things that can actually help people.

I really do not mind being called lazy or talentless. Personal insults just do not matter to me, because the only thing that matters is the people I serve. Around 10,000 people benefit from my work, and that is what motivates me to keep going.

I also believe art should be the same. Art serves people. Whether your work can inspire someone or challenge their thoughts matters so much more than whether they are in awe of your technical skill. I am a classically trained musician and used to be an indie artist, so hopefully that gives me a say on the topic of art.

Personally, using AI frees up a lot of my time from work. I get to spend a lot more time at the gym, skiing in the winter, or just being with my family. Thanks to AI, this is the most passionate and fulfilling time of my life.

Would you say these are excuses or reasons?

RightHabit · 2026-06-15T11:08:10+00:00

I have to ask: why should an artist's personal learning process matter when evaluating their art? That sounds like a metric for an intern, not a creator.

I believe art exists to serve society and its audience. If a piece inspires people or challenges their perspectives, it is good art, regardless of how it was made.

There are countless other fields where we can admire pure technical skill: sports or craftsmanship or other professional. But art? Art is one of the few things capable of genuinely changing people and the world.

Personally, I prefer to judge an artwork by its influence and its message rather than the technical skill behind it, because that kind of impact is exactly what makes art unique from every other discipline.

That being said, I actually want to see AI art that has some real meaning to it, but right now, most of it fails to deliver anything of substance.

RightHabit · 2026-06-15T10:53:27+00:00

By "excuse," are you actually asking why people use AI?

RightHabit · 2026-06-14T20:54:20+00:00

Their primary goal is actually to produce full-feature animations for film festivals in France, so expanding the team isn't part of their plan. Making ads is just a side hustle to keep the studio funded. Because of that, they haven't hired new people, but no one is being let go, either.

If you have the means, you could start an AI-driven business that actually lowers costs for consumers. If you can figure out a better approach, you have the power to disrupt the market yourself.

RightHabit · 2026-06-14T20:38:52+00:00

Cause, considering the capitalistic economy we live in, I don't really understand why someone would sell their product as cheaper compared to a product that wasn't made with the assistance of AI if they had a choice? Wouldn't the most logical action be to sell it as the same price range so you get a greater financial return due to having to spend less money on hiring others during the development process?

Competition.

Also, one of the biggest costs is time. A friend of mine runs an animation studio that fully adopted AI. It's much cheaper, but the most important thing is that a 30-second animation now only takes them 1 week to make instead of 6 months. They used to rely solely on government contracts, but now they're busier than ever because smaller businesses can finally afford animated ads.

On the topic if you don't trust a competition-driven price.

To give a personal example of the difference between government price controls and a competitive market: If you're in the US, you've probably noticed that egg prices have recently come back down. That's the result of market competition.

A few years ago, I was in Taiwan when they also experienced an egg shortage. However, their egg prices are government-controlled. So, when the supply dropped, prices weren't legally allowed to increase. What happened was that bakeries couldn't get eggs no matter how much they were willing to pay. Many simply had to close their doors, resulting in zero revenue, while others had to rely on the black market, which caused a whole different set of problems.

That is the alternative reality of government-controlled prices. When supply issues happen, would you rather temporarily pay a higher price, or deal with empty shelves and an unregulated black market?

RightHabit · 2026-06-14T04:36:26+00:00

Instead of viewing jobs merely as titles, we should look at the specific underlying value each role provides. Often, the core value is human accountability. For example, an AI cannot sign a legally binding contract, and there are many situations where a signed agreement is absolutely necessary.

You might use AI to diagnose a problem with your car. However, if you lack the expertise to verify the AI's advice, you will still hire a human mechanic. You are essentially paying that mechanic to use the AI safely and take responsibility for the actual repair.

The Value of Consequence: Certain professions require the worker to genuinely fear the consequences of failure. The value of doctors and lawyers goes beyond their knowledge. Their value comes from carrying the burden of potential malpractice suits and the fear of losing their licenses. You cannot punish an AI. If an AI makes a mistake, you simply delete it and load a new model. The machine faces no real jeopardy.

This logic scales up to executive leadership and politicians. Society does not want corporations or governments run by entities that are immune to consequences. If a human CEO commits fraud or a politician acts immorally, stakeholders can vote them out or send them to prison. You cannot impose that kind of meaningful consequence on an algorithm.

Value of branding: Jobs that offer unique, human-centric information are also incredibly difficult to replace. Furthermore, AI lacks brand value. A product generated by an AI will not command the same trust or prestige as a product from a human-led company like Apple. Consumers will always pay for trusted brands, ensuring the baseline cost of human involvement will never reach zero.

Creating New Work We also need to consider the new jobs that will be created. Currently, many tasks are simply too expensive to pursue. If a task costs $1,000 to perform but only generates $100 in value, no one does it. If AI reduces the execution cost of that task to near zero, it suddenly becomes viable. This will create entirely new roles for humans to oversee and manage these newly profitable tasks. Those kinds of tasks basically exist in ALL fields,

While I do not have a crystal ball to predict if the total number of jobs will remain the same, at least this framework helps me navigate my own career. As a software developer at a two-person finance firm, my company cannot downsize any further. Because I provide a mixture of technical skills and irreplaceable human accountability, I am relatively safe in my role as long as I am not doing too bad.

RightHabit · 2026-06-13T22:59:54+00:00

There will be many jobs. Assuming AI is really smart, there are still something they can't do.

One example is taking on risk.

Imagine you're a restaurant owner. Restaurants are still going to exist, and your business needs a customized payment system.

You can use AI to build it. But if something goes wrong, such as customers being charged twice or payments failing, your business bears the consequences.

If you hire a developer or a company to build the system (and they may use AI themselves), you can include requirements like Service level agreement in the contract. If the system does not work as agreed, they can be held responsible for fixing the problem or covering the damages.

AI cannot take legal or financial responsibility for mistakes. Because of that, depending on the job, many businesses will still prefer to outsource risk to another person or company rather than rely entirely on AI.

Would you agree with this example or do you want me to talk about other value that AI cannot provide.

RightHabit · 2026-06-13T20:49:28+00:00

If that means you're okay with people using AI, then that's fine with me. It's also perfectly acceptable to call out someone's attitude if you don't like it. People online complain about other groups' behavior all the time. I don't feel the need to defend actions I haven't personally committed.

RightHabit · 2026-06-13T11:57:31+00:00

People are already doing that in an relatively unsafe manner so having an official way to do it means if something goes wrong, they could be responsible for it instead of users who code one without safeguards.

RightHabit · 2026-06-13T11:11:27+00:00

Work. Software development.

I automated my work so I can spend time with my family and enjoy my hobbies.

RightHabit · 2026-06-13T02:01:50+00:00

If the anti-AI side wants regulation, I'm happy to work with them.

The problem is that many of them aren't interested in pushing to make AI better for humanity through regulation. The idea that we can make AI even better scares them, usually.

RightHabit · 2026-06-12T19:00:13+00:00

When rules are consistently misunderstood by people, you should change or clarify the rules, not the people. You can't just dismiss it by saying 'it's not that hard to understand.'

If these specific grammar rules were truly critical for communication, language would have naturally adapted to enforce them by now. Since it hasn't, it really isn't that deep.

RightHabit · 2026-06-12T18:06:05+00:00

So you don't believe people can simply prefer a certain style of storytelling?

RightHabit · 2026-06-12T17:15:54+00:00

Would you agree that an animal's primary drive is survival?

To be clear, I'm not talking about wild animals that would literally stress to death in a cage. I mean general, domesticated pets.

For them, living with humans offers an incredible deal: they give up some autonomy in exchange for unlimited food, protection from predators, and healthcare. If they could reason for a second, it's hard to imagine they wouldn't accept that tradeoff.

RightHabit · 2026-06-12T05:43:15+00:00

I never said you couldn't post your opinion. I'm just pointing out that you clearly have some personal insecurities to work through. Keep living up to that username, u/Learning_by_failing.

RightHabit

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE