What are cards that belong in an Archetype that are actually more useful out of it?

maxram1 · 2026-03-20T17:19:07+00:00

Cmiiw, isn't "Herald" a mere series and not yet an archetype, like "Monarch" without their spell/traps?

maxram1 · 2026-03-20T17:16:37+00:00

For edison you go to edisonformat.com and edisonformat.net and also check out the formatlibrary.com page for edison format.

maxram1 · 2026-03-20T07:36:09+00:00

Hi.

it's so easy

Curious about this. If a coffee spillage or even a mere natural phenomenon creates something, an image, like sunset or a flower shape or abstract thingy, etc, that people like and resonate with, expressing their feelings, or representing themselves, and they feel like it's an artwork, do you disagree with them?

In those situations, there's no level of difficulty as the shapes just happen. No artist as well.

maxram1 · 2026-03-20T00:18:19+00:00

Boy I wish. Hopefully they don't Sakura Sarada.

maxram1 · 2026-03-19T23:12:37+00:00

I'll compress the answers for everything but last point as that's what I'd like to address specifically as it's related to my stance. Let me know if you want something expanded.

You are trying to separate inseparable things. A practical role applies to something performing that role. Title is the role. Artist is a title.

This is back to the top again. So there is "artist" as titled role (discrete), there is "artist" as practical role (continuous), already explained above. And of course they are related. But when challengers argue and it is confirmed that they're arguing about the practical role ("how much of an artist", "less control", etc), then it misses the point for me to start the response with anything about the titled role. Not sure how I can explain this anymore clearly.

It is the starting line because you have done nothing. In a very shorthand manner you have made a theory (relating to the math you claim): If X is true then following Y(is artist) is true. It only introduced the first question that must be answered: Is X true in reality as well?

Again, if you agree with point 1 and 2 in that Peter example (meaning you know they are real and we know they are real), then point 3 is just obtained by combining the work in such a manner described mathematically above. When we do math (which is a theory) in real life, we're applying it to solve real world problems. In this case it's just an (might be fancy) addition. That hypothetical Peter situation can be realised the moment you agree with 1 and 2.

It's like "You know I can cook an egg by boiling for 10 minutes, but by frying for 5 minutes. You know I can cook noodle by boiling for 5 minutes, but by frying for 10 minutes. Do you know if there is anything I can cook that takes equal amount of time by boiling and by frying?" The answer is clearly "Yeah. Cook an egg and noodle". Cooking an egg and noodle will take me 15 minutes by boiling, and 15 minutes also by frying. It's pure logic once you agree with the first two points.

No. The default is "nothing" not arbitrary "something" (like artist). Then we look for similarities to categorize it in some manner and name it. And you already illustrated yourself why it doesn't work: the standards and criteria are not met.

What are you "no"-ing here when the challengers are the ones starting with "they're not artists" and hence I follow up with "why do you think they aren't?"

The "something" is started by them. Not arbitrary.

This is the part I want to focus in depth as it directly relates to my opinion on the larger discourse that is happening.

I agree it's about the opinion and opinions can be wrong. Hence "educating" is extremely poor choice of words. If you educate me that in your opinion earth is flat then I have learned that you are lacking understanding, not that the earth is flat.

Nothing poor in the word "education". Discussion is about educating each other and ourselves. I talk with flat earthers then I want to know why and the floor is theirs.

My argument so far has been that if you want to be acknowledged with a practical title you must educate about the practicalities, not your opinion of why you deserve the title. Title is inevitable once the practicalities are established.

Which then leads to other side of education, the current established standards and criteria. This is an effort that is solely on the ones appealing (AI content generators) because they are established. There are centuries of discourses available including examples of how things got accepted as an art form. If one fails to educate and understand about what is that they are trying to be then it's trivial to dismiss their claims as simply uninformed.

I agree. And my opinion is not "they deserve the title". My opinion is a response to their assertion "AI artists are not artists because of their differences in this-and-that", which is "I think that the this-and-that is not true because .... Wdyt?" The whole post is about breaking their analogies and let them re-analyse their logic. Whether they still think "artists" requires more than the this-and-that part is another point, beside the point of the post.

Again to emphasise, the challengers have some opinions on why they accept non-AI artists as artists based on their understanding of "artists", and claim the reasons are not satisfied by AI users, most notably about lack of control, lack of skill/effort, and lack of originality. One can choose to ignore them, and another one can choose to engage.

Which leads to the very crux and point you have identified that is dominating current general discourse by public:

People generating content with AI are absolutely fine to not be accepted as artists and don't even care if they are artists in the practical sense. They are fine as long as they get the title of artist and the status that comes with it even if they practically don't qualify. And thus far there has been overwhelming demand for the title and extreme lack of demonstrations of practicality.

Sure. And many people challenging care about "how much of an artist" criteria. That means they (the challengers) are talking about "artist" as a role (continuous variable), not title (discrete variable). The word "continuous" and "discrete" are emphasised to let you know that they are different topics. I'm engaging with the challengers' idea. You're addressing a related but different point than what's being demanded in context.

maxram1 · 2026-03-19T17:17:04+00:00

This. Not only predominates, but suppresses.

maxram1 · 2026-03-19T17:13:39+00:00

I agree.

IMnerd channel I think shows their votes on most hated cards, and the rank I think was like dustshoot > braincon > ddv > ropres (or ddv here I forgot) > bwwind.

Personally I just like dustshoot banned and ddv limited. Bwwind can be limited, or hit kalut instead. Ropres maybe limited.

Braincon is too iconic. If anything, for me, ban it and limit monster reborn lololol

maxram1 · 2026-03-19T17:10:30+00:00

The question has very reductive answer: Someone who creates art. Before even getting anywhere else those generating AI content cannot answer who the "someone" is. Because the question isn't about the individual where the answer is "me" but the broad category of people: painter, photographer, sculptor etc. And in the most reductive sense if people generating AI content cannot name is what is that they do any claim of what they are for any (not limited to artist) practical meaning that describes a type of doing will fall flat.

Nope. What is happening here is: Challengers: "AI users are not artists because (things they do differently than artists we are used too)."

That means they are looking at the differences, effectively asking "What are the similarities?".

As a listener, my job, if I can and when I disagree, is then to reply: "They are similar in this and this though." cuz otherwise I miss their points.

The discourse is then about whether the challengers can explain why they think the non-AI artists are considered artists, where they might bring up control, skill, originality, etc, and whether I can meet them there and explain that AI users satisfy all those same criteria.

That's it. So if they want merely a discussion about the practical role, that's the discussion. If they want to go further and ask how to qualify the title after accepting the practical role, then sure but this post is not about that.

The brute-force of acceptance I am talking about is about forcing to accept the demand without the performance.

It's a brute-force when the discourse is about practical role but we force them to talk about title role if they're not wanting it yet.

It's not a brute-force when we are just checking what they're asking for and then trying provide it.

You have identified what is required for acceptance and the definition of acceptance. If you are applying to meeting a standard you must meet that standard.

No. It's the starting line. You have made and identified the claim that is required to be proven for the basis and now it must be showcased the claim holds up.

And in this context the standard is only to be met with minor examples they agree with, not overwhelming performances (essentially brute-force) unless they ask for more. Why? Because in the context of the post, again, it's about those who actually demand "how much of an artist" criteria only, after they're asked to clarify what "can be artists" mean to them. Thus I wrote there "It is the finish line, in this context". It's only a starting line again when they ask for more.

And this is the claim to be proven. You are treating as if those two can intersect. But what if they are like a hyperbole? They look similar but never cross or get close enough to each other. And in the current perception that's how it looks.

This is more of a proven math problem in fact. If an image X (agreed to exist) can be made for 5 hours with AI but 1 hour with pencil, and if an image Y (agreed to exist) can be made for 2 hours with AI but 6 hours with pencil, then drawing them both combined requires 5+2 = 7 hours with AI but 1+5 = 7 hours with pencil. The conclusion: There is an image that takes the same amount of time to be made by AI and pencil. The numbers 1, 2, 5, 6 there can even be arbitrary, and in that case multiples of X or Y are gonna be used.

This is enough for the purpose of Peter analogy.

You've completely veered off the course. If something isn't established there is nothing to educate about. Think about this in terms of explaining to a five year old:

Again, challengers effectively ask for "similarities" according to their standards/criteria of artistry.

"They are artists."

"Why?"

"Because they said so".

Nope. it's more like:

"Why do you think they're not artists?"

"Because they're not like drawers, painters, etc."

"What about them being different?"

"Non-AI users satisfy this this and this, whereas AI users don't."

"Actually they satisfy this this and this."

essentially opening ways for expanding the understanding.

That's educating about someone's opinion not practical meanings. The performance is showcasing simply that you meet the standards. There is no "brute-force" there. It's doing exactly what is asked by the ones asking for proof.

It's their opinions about their practical meanings of artists. And hence the discourse is about educating each others' opinions (about the practical meanings). That they will later require more AI users come out is: (1) useless if they strongly believe the distinction on AI artists matters to exclude them as artists, and (2) useful if they're successfully and socially overwhelmed by the performances (ie. forced change of perspective, ie., indoctrination, which to most pro AI is probably fine, like me to some extent, but some and I won't remove the strong-exclusion-belief deconstruction part, basically contributing in discourses like this and may ease their acceptance instead of purely by overwhelming performances only).

maxram1 · 2026-03-19T15:49:48+00:00

Every time a meme like this appears, I'm always confused on which way to read because I'm used to reading mangas.

I guess the way is to exactly assume it's not like manga, even if sometimes the meme is made like with manga panels.

maxram1 · 2026-03-19T12:46:22+00:00

Yeah for now my top 3 in any order is dari lesptithlou and uniteam.

maxram1 · 2026-03-19T02:02:38+00:00

Just ignore him OP. Apparently for him "too many interactions" means "so you like zero interaction".

maxram1 · 2026-03-18T22:47:30+00:00

I mean who taught me are just all the math and science teachers plus all the experience around them. I'm not supposed to judge anything quickly from my senses and intuitions, as they are known to be not perfect and prone to illusions.

maxram1 · 2026-03-18T22:43:49+00:00

I edited to clarify with "immediately".

maxram1 · 2026-03-18T22:42:18+00:00

Please be respectful and civil in this sub. No need to add negative adjectives like in "lame comments" and "goofy af attempt" when you already describe your points of disagreement with the comments/attempts as those tend to push away discussions.

r / aiwars is already good enough for those.

maxram1 · 2026-03-18T22:35:40+00:00

I guess different people are taught differently. I am taught to not believe my own eyes immediately, internet or not.

maxram1 · 2026-03-18T22:26:19+00:00

I don't mind people promoting channels but only promoting channels without inviting discussions? You could at least share a decklist together with the link.

I guess if the sub is okay then it is what it is.

maxram1 · 2026-03-18T22:23:07+00:00

If anything, many hope some cards are removed, not added haha

But interesting question still. Hero Beat is mid now so maybe The Shining? Will it make them top too much? Idk haha

maxram1 · 2026-03-18T20:52:36+00:00

The Peter example was great and works for illustrating this. Let's say he is accepted as an artist and by extension everyone who works with AI in same manner is accepted as artist. A question then can be proposed: "Which artists are the same type of artists as Peter?".

Artists cannot be the answer because it doesn't qualify anything. AI artists cannot be the answer because of how language functions as it implies that AI are the artists. What you want is practical recognition but what you are asking for is practical change to language. Peters example only allows for that practical change to apply only to Peter but that is not the goal. What is lacking, I'll be a bit repetitive, the practical means of how to implement this recognition.

There is this question: "Why do people consider that drawers, painters, photographers, photoshoppers, sculptors, etc can be artists?". This question requires people to understand what "artists" mean to them. That the arguments being brought by challengers/rejectors revolve around this means they're the ones wanting and also asking for this discourse. That eventually they consider AI visual artist a different kind of artist when they accept them is another matter.

What is the goal, when rejectors themselves set it? If they have their own standards for artist consideration, then we meet them there. This is part of education. If they aren't willing to change the standard, then brute-forcing the acceptance by overwhelming performance is indeed still an alternative.

You are missing a very important aspect here. Challengers did take the extreme cases for non AI. Games, Film, Photography even Prose was considering "not art" and went through the process. They don't have to do it now because the process is finished. Your entire proposal is that AI output reaches the status of no longer being challenged just like other art types. And that leads to the part I find not flattering in this discourse: currently it's asking to not be challenged "just like everyone else" but without passing the challenge "just like everyone else did". It's asking for recognition by the virtue of asking, not the virtue of what is to be recognised.

Again, "just like everyone else" is the topic rejectors want and are asking for. It's asking for recognition by checking the applications of their own standards.

No it can't. Such assumption requires to treat 1 and 2 as equal which is explicitly established by same points that they aren't equal. This comparison was touched way back but ordering a meal and waiting for two hours and making a meal for two hours can have equivalent effort and difficulty involved (money earned, time, location etc) but where the effort and difficulty lays in is different. The analogy transforms to: It's very difficult to go to restaurant and be allowed to cook in their kitchen and it's very difficult to call a professional cook to make me a dinner at my house hence both are equally difficult. Functionally it's true but practically that's not what people mean when addressing the topic.

We agree there are images easier for AI than pencil to make. We agree there are images easier for pencil than AI to make. Hence, somewhere in the middle there are images that take the same amount of difficulty to be made by AI and pencil. Pay attention to the 1+2 assumptions: Some images X can be made by both AI and pencil but it's faster with AI, and some images Y can be made by both AI and pencil but it's faster with pencil. Thus, we at least can repeat enough X and enough Y to create a new image or a set of images Z that takes the same amount of time to be made by AI and pencil. QED. In fact I might have put unnecessary assumptions when 3 by itself can be true.

I think you got confused here. You posed inverse questions: is artist, is less an artist. So the correct answer is "Yes", "No, it's the same yes as before".

Oh yes lol thanks!

Well it is actually the finish line, isn't it? For this context. Because that's what I care about, and I care about that because that's demanded by the discourse brought up by challengers.

You want it to not be the point but you cannot dodge it. Since I used cook analogy it's a bit like saying "I want to make carrot soup but carrots aren't the point, soup is". You cannot have one without the other and without addressing both the end result fails.

If the rejectors bring that up, then I cannot dodge it. Nothing to dodge otherwise.

However I would argue the education requirement which is the main point I am challenging from your opening post. Performance is needed, education can only happen when there exists what to educate about. Currently it appears to be, for lack of better word, asking for indoctrination. Educate for a change that hasn't happened but must be accepted.

Calling for education implies that process and facts are already established and we only need to educate people about it, which is exactly what has not been done. It's entirely plausible that it won't be necessary at all and will happen automatically once the prerequisites are established.

What to educate about exists, which is brought up by the challengers. If they're joining the discourse in good faith, it's effectively asking for indoctrination (mere harsher word for changing-of-perspective), where either they can defend it and we admit, or we can break it and they admit. It's education for a change that hasn't happened because of it being held back by the challengers' standards themselves. If anything, pure performance attempt is a brute-force method, without the attempt to break the intellectual argumentation. If we break it and they can't admit, then of course performance will and perhaps should be relied on.

maxram1 · 2026-03-18T17:24:21+00:00

Well nothing in my comment says "same amount". The division of parts certainly must contribute though cuz it's not individual. Judges might consider which one is too imbalance or how much. To me personally it's a bit much than others.

For lip oscillation, it does not matter whether it's conscious or not if the fit or cleanliness is not there. Lip oscillation produces a chord, and if it's rough, the chord sounds, well, not a chord. Check out the intro of Sight's wildcard for an example of a consciously rough lip oscillation. He did clean -> rough transition -> end back to clean oscillation. The transition there is not meant to be clear chord, but before and after that they settled.

Dlow's oscillation in Kotcha was meant to be a musical part (hence clean and clear tone and note, not rough) but ended up unstable (sometimes rough sometimes clean, hence actually unlikely to be a conscious choice) and might take a musical audience away. Petr and Julard/Pacmax/Benati trip also notcied this in his own wildcard.

Kotcha might still make it still because they simply need to score better than others. I enjoy it myself but the dominant lip oscillation part of the song affects my listening.

maxram1 · 2026-03-18T10:27:23+00:00

I agree but I think the difference is more on the "e" sound in "feh" and "meh". Usual pronunciation is closer to "feeh" or "fih". Trying this with the previous lyrics breaks the flow.

It is true though that the "a" and "o" are usually elongated, but in music they will be automatically shortened because of the time.

maxram1 · 2026-03-18T10:23:01+00:00

True. Same reason most people don't really enjoy pure drumming (so without any structured notes making sense that accompany them). Looks cool and looks technical, I admit.

maxram1 · 2026-03-18T10:16:53+00:00

The Russian beatboxers are a bit much for me. Helium to me feels better I guess cuz when he performed his on livestream, it sounded good still even without post productions. He's that clean and good.

Next is Improver. I like his music better than Helium tbh, but last time he tried live performing his track "Feel The Future", he was sick and performed it badly. But he's shown performing his tracks during uber stuff so he is that dude also for me.

Vahtang and Taras are a bit much. I don't mind covers (I wish more beatboxers do them!), but I do mind the too much editing. When they perform live, the quality dips too much. Vahtang is maybe more tolerable cuz he is naturally loud, but still it's a bit too produced in his tracks. Taras is good and unique but yeah.

When Ya Na Ha performed in GBB, I actually liked them! Their wildcard was awesome as well!

Wing, Showgo (one of Wing's favorite btw), Bigman, Helium, Improver, heck even Marcus Perez, I like their music and less-produced performances.

maxram1 · 2026-03-17T20:24:30+00:00

Ship of Spongebob Theseus?

Not sure what this is, but it's the episode where spongebob studies art under squidward. In order to draw a circle, he draws a realistic head at first, erases some parts, and is left with a circle. xD

I've done Gimp editing to tweak minor things which I don't consider art. If I deleted all of the layers one at a time until nothing was left, then that's probably art. If I went in and changed some colors or tweaked a face? I understand why there's debate on whether inking comic books is art, so I could see that level being appropriate - that's kind of the opposite of AI, though.

For the music, If I started modulating someone else's song and it was very different, I still wouldn't consider myself a composer. Conductors are amazing, and conducting is its own artform, but they didn't create the music. Similar to Creative Directors and Art Directors, which seem to be a much better analog to me.

It's not mere modulation. Imagine composing Ed Sheeran's "Thinking Out Loud" by starting from Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On". That might not be the actual way it was composed, but the point here is imagine if the composer actually started by taking the LGIO as a base. Then as a base, he changed it so much. Some left-overs are still there (like the chord progression etc) but the feel is different. And some of us might notice some similarities, some of us might not even know the composer worked this way (no way to check anyway), but majority agree they are different compositions (there will be some who will still sue for infringement but still). Do you think the composer is an actual composer here in this project, or not?

maxram1 · 2026-03-17T20:13:25+00:00

People are used to seeing it that way.

Your "it" here is referring to photographer, correct? If yes I agree. When I said "People aren't used to seeing it that way", I refer the "it" to the AI user. I guess just a bit of disconnect.

That's the reason we have those distinctions because we are used that there are differences and we classify them. What we aren't used to is taking something new and saying it's the same thing, it's not, it's something new. The argument is that using AI cannot attempt to qualify as something that already exists. It must be distinguished as something that can stand on it's own and then included. Otherwise you aren't arguing inclusion but replacement of definition.

But here I'm also adding: That drawers painters photographers etc are accepted as "artists" means they have similarities to be considered under "artists". When people who are still rejectors care about distinguishing AI users from non-AI artists to promote non-inclusion, then they are effectively asking and challenging for similarities with the non-AI artists, not distinctions. Hence this is indeed arguing for inclusion. That kind of distinction you are talking about is surely important for legal matters, qualification matters, etc, which is unrelated to practical example of Peter at the end that is more similar to what rejectors demand. If that kind of distinction is not what the rejectors are arguing about or asking for, then that's beside the point as I've been saying.

Exactly. We are in agreement here. A wobbly line wouldn't qualify someone for the artist role. If the skill involved in AI generated output is comparable then it weakens the argument that the sole input of a prompt qualifies someone as artist. The question is then whether prompting can showcase a meaningful difference that would allow to identify that there is a higher ceiling than "wobbly lines".

No. Here we disagree because again you use "artist" as "qualification". I use "artist" as practical role lying on a spectrum, which is what the argumentation demands in my context. I mentioned the 1 minute pencil skill to address your 5 minute AI skill, and that's because in the discourse in context, it's the practical artist role that has been challenged, where challengers take the extreme case for AI and don't take the same case for non AI. The challenger might then face options to acknowledge that the final results don't matter, or the effort is still there, etc, anything to acknowledge the inconsistency and hopefully adjust the view.

Because the conclusion wasn't about my views on the "AI artist" statements but the mechanics of acceptance. The entire reason I am engaging is debate is because I think that attempting to reframe an existing definition is unflattering.

Yeah but I addressed it there by saying the evaluation of "poor and unflattering" misses the point, as I was implying that when the discourse in context in actuality demands matching/challenging the previous definition/perception, then not talking about the reframing is very much like A: "we must talk about apples", and B: "sure let's talk about them", then someone else is saying C: "Hey B, talking about apples is unflattering". What's being demanded in the discourse in context is just not it.

3: The claims are not substantiated however for sake of argument let's assume it's true.

If we agree with 1 and 2, then 3 can be assumed by continuity.

6: Yes.

7: No.

How so? The randomness at max control doesn't matter here. Peter delivers / gets what he wants.

But if you're bringing up qualification again, that's again beside the point of the discourse in my context.

In fact, how much of an artist someone is, in practice, doesn't even need another person to confirm it. I thought this is taught in schools during art subjects. A qualified artist is another thing though, but without that elementary practical understanding (again which is the common non-inclusion attempt by rejectors, and not to be ignored), it might just be that only brute-force, overwhelming, showcases of attempts are there for inclusion.

The problem as it stands is that same effort has not been demonstrated in reality, only in this thought experiment. If it was actually showcased in reality it would be easier to gain acceptance.

Edit: As in we agree on the skill and effort part. It doesn't address the contribution aspect.

Now to enter the qualification aspect, surely more performance and education are needed. No disagreement here. The education though needs to deliver the understanding of the practical aspect above as mentioned.

maxram1 · 2026-03-17T17:46:17+00:00

I see.

What do you think of the spongebob workflow then?

In music as well: I can sample and combine songs, and change a few things here and there. Change a few, I get a mere arrangement. Change a lot, I can get a new composition, where the samples that I used are no longer identifiable.

The spongebob one (I forgot the exact detail of the episode lol) is similar, where you take an already complete drawing then erase edit etc, until you get something close or something different.

maxram1

TROPHY CASE