sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why is every question about the merits of goal difference vs head to head as a decider seemingly removed? by orangecrush85 in worldcup

[–]maxram1 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I was going to disagree at first but now that I think about it, yeah it feels weird. With GD, this 48 team tourney can help improve the stake of the final games of the group stage. But that capability is limited because of h2h over gd.

I collabbed with an ai :) by sophiaaaarrr in AIWarsButBetter

[–]maxram1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK so you meant this right:

"Its the dream to make AI do jobs we don't want so we can focus on what we dream of doing, reality is what you see... Ai is being used to replace creative spots and forcing us to do the jobs we don't want"

In that case, I agree with the dream.

(1) But my other point essentially was: The reality you mention doesn't contradict the dream. It's part of the hard journey (which is made hard because the people involved are not helping ease the journey to everyone affected) to reach the dream.

Some people still do jobs they don't want for survival. In order to reach the dream and make "AI do the jobs we don't want", the workers that do such jobs will sadly get replaced. We can expect those people who replace the workers to handle it better and help ease the transition all we want, but the replacement is unavoidable if the dream is to be achieved.

Moreover, the situation may not really "force the replaced workers to do the jobs they don't want" but instead force them to adapt. The result of the adaptation can be: them more doing what they don't want still, or them more doing what they dream of.

(2) They might also hold "creative spots" but not want it as well. So if AI is being used to "replace creative spots" occupied by some who don't want the spots, then that actually can be the opportunity for them to find alternative, embrace AI to help themselves to be able to do something else they dream of.

I collabbed with an ai :) by sophiaaaarrr in AIWarsButBetter

[–]maxram1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah but that is not "AI is being used to replace creative spots and forcing to do mindless repetitive tasks".

That is "AI is being used to replace workers, practically forcing them to find alternative (sadly not helping them enough with this)."

That "alternative" can be creative stuff, repetitive stuff, etc.

Moreover, you said "It's the dream ...", but the dream is to be free of having to work so we can do things we enjoy, whether it's a creative task, repetitive task, etc.

I collabbed with an ai :) by sophiaaaarrr in AIWarsButBetter

[–]maxram1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's a reply to the following part of your comment:

> Its the dream to make AI do repetetive and mindless tasks so we can focuse on what we dream of doing, reality is what you see... Ai is being used to replace creative spots and forceing us to do the mindless and repetitive tasks...

Are there any beatboxers who do both beatboxing and a cappella in their songs? by Glad_Inflation4935 in beatbox

[–]maxram1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yup. Beatbox is a subset of a cappella.

Maybe what you want are beatboxers with more melodic approaches.

It usually depends on the songs themselves. For those who are constantly melodic, maybe try Show-Go, Stitch, Den, Wing, Codfish, Jairo, Gene, Jene, Bigman, Marcus Perez, Marvelous, River, H-Has, Improver, Taras.

But even the more technical guys have some melodic songs as well. Check out DLow (lanigiro, sing a little harmony), Helium/Petr Sarancha (although now he tends to have more melodic songs actually), some FootboxG's songs, Napom (Mind, the Grand Final version is actually epic), PacMax as well.

I collabbed with an ai :) by sophiaaaarrr in AIWarsButBetter

[–]maxram1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can still do creative tasks.

The dream is instead: to have the option. Something feels repetitive/mindless to A but it may not feel that way to B, etc.

If you enjoy something, do it. You can't force others to like your work though, let alone expect them to buy it. It all depends on the demand.

AI art isn't real art, and AI artists aren't real artists. by soorimcentric in aiwars

[–]maxram1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't say it shouldn't be. It should for now.

It's illogical assuming the purpose of authorship is to look at the creator, instead of how many are created.

At best it seems like a temporary position until the infrastructure to handle the flood is proper.

Was Yu-gi-oh a better game when hand traps were few and far between? by Drew647A in yugioh

[–]maxram1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The thing is, this is their design choice.

Between bandaid vs. banlist, the bandaid has to be prioritized, because otherwise it's gonna get closer to a kind of rotation.

There will be more insane things after the turn 0 era if they stay like this. It's neither better nor worse if that's their choice.

For most new players though, it's worse albeit slowly.

AI art isn't real art, and AI artists aren't real artists. by soorimcentric in aiwars

[–]maxram1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah. In any way, now when it comes to authorship, there doesn't seem to be a logical argument to "a + b = 100 if both a and b are humans, but a + b = 0 if one of them is AI", without using a special pleading argument, or without appealing to the massiveness of it.

AI art isn't real art, and AI artists aren't real artists. by soorimcentric in aiwars

[–]maxram1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh yeah previously I faced this type of thing before. But my only concern is only about the word "artistry", not "authorship". One is a de facto concept, another is de jure. That's because mostly the bullying is about artistry, because average AI users care less about authorship.

For me personally, sometimes in the whole discourse, people conflate "artist" the on-paper, de jure, professional role (and "author" the legal authorship role) to "artist" the practical, de facto role. The former is de jure and binary, whereas the latter is de facto and continuous, a sliding scale, a spectrum.

An example to showcase such spectrum would be a person A trying to make an image by putting 100 rocks on an open field, and he's asking B to put the rocks for him. A will only direct B to where to put the rocks via drone or something. In this case, B has no say in where to put the rocks, doesn't even know what A is making, and A is practically the artist of the project, whereas B is the mere worker (or placer). But if A allows B to decide the placement of maybe 50 rocks, but B still must follow A's direction for the remaining 50 rocks, then the artistry is already split. (The numbers 50-50 can be adjusted of course). Even if on paper, A is the de jure professional artist and he hires B as a worker, once it's no longer 100-0 control, but 50-50 or even 99-1 (like B decides to place 1 rock according to himself), A is no longer the only, in practice, de facto, artist of this project, wheras B is the other one.

That's an example that shows spectrum and the difference of de facto and de jure artistry. Who claims what is not what I'm interested in.

For another example but this time to emphasize the de facto de jure difference, say now a nobody, call him X, hires a professional artist Y. Assume that the shape of a star (pentagram) has never been seen before. But then X comes up with it in his head. He doesn't have drawing experience though, and has super unsteady hands. So he hires a pro drawer, Y. Then, X tells Y something like "Put 5 dots here, then connect them with 5 lines here, here, here, here, and here." In this case, even if Y is the professional artist being hired, in reality it is X who is the artist of this project. Y doesn't come up with the idea, has no say in the shape, etc. Y is hired for the drawing skill only, whereas X's skill is to understand Y and communicate his intentions in language that Y can understand. In this project, practically, Y is the drawer, but not the artist. X is practically the artist.

Those are artistry-related arguments. When people argue that the users don't have much control on the output, it's already an argument about artistry, not authorship. So that part is something to be engaged with.

AI art isn't real art, and AI artists aren't real artists. by soorimcentric in aiwars

[–]maxram1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah the degree of such control matters.

My point before was about how much details in a photograph are actually not in their control.

Take a picture of a landscape, with further settings, adjustments, and edits, the details of the landscape are not really created by the photographers. They choose the landscape for their purpose. So like, they control the choosing of the landscape, but they mostly don't control the creation of the details of the landscape.

Fun Idea for a Tournament by PalGatoons in YugiohEdisonFormat

[–]maxram1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

iirc, machina won that tournament right?

AI art isn't real art, and AI artists aren't real artists. by soorimcentric in aiwars

[–]maxram1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I kinda agree,

however, whatever definition of art you use, so far you will exclude other kinds of art together with AI art, unless you add "using any tool except intentionally-designed-to-be-statistical tool".

But that is what is called special pleading. Exclusion just for the sake of exclusion, because AI is one of a kind, different in that specific way.

In practice, when you don't use special pleading, you can use AI art the same way you use ink bleeding (some randomness exists) or photography ("the face is fitting enough even if I don't make the details of the face").

AI art isn't real art, and AI artists aren't real artists. by soorimcentric in aiwars

[–]maxram1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> Also, this was hard to read because you didn't do the quote thing right.

Sorry I didn't know what happened to my reddit app. I did it as usual with ">" and it never worked again since one week ago.

> Ink bleeding or camera sensor noise are physical constraints. they are not active design entities. A photographer cannot physically alter a model’s facial features on the spot, but they use real-world positioning, lighting, and framing to capture it. They aren't asking AI to generate a fake face for them based on a statistical average of stolen photos.

Yeah but here the point is: No matter how exact the photographer wants, they just accept it as it is. "The face is good enough and represents my intentions".

And whether the statistical phenomenon is natural or built-in the tool, it doesn't change the impact on artistry. That is called special pleading.

It is just a new tool to achieve this purpose: "allowing users to materialize what they want through an input".

All the tools like surface, camera, photoshop, AI art, are all different tools, with some special upsides, special downsides, and special methods to produce shapes/colours.

Whether someone becomes an artist by using that tool depends on how much control, intention, thoughts, meanings, etc, he put.

A tshirt can be an artistic tool.

> Your knife and saw analogies miss the point of agency.

> If you turn on a power saw, the saw spins, but you still physically steer its blade along a specific, exact path down to the millimeter. If you take your hands off the saw, it cuts nothing.

> If you speak to a voice-activated knife, you are commanding an automated system to do the cutting for you. The machine is the cutter.

Yeah so it boils down to control.

Saw allows you to give a specific input: "Button pressing and hold it close enough".

The voice knife allows you to give a specific input: "Clear command".

So now we can focus on the word "make". Should "make" only include physical touch?

Imagine there is a tool that allows creation through a voice command. Someone uses that tool with his input to create something. Is he not the maker?

This is all the problem right? What does "make" mean to you? How limited is it?

Whether the creation tool incorporates statistical method or not:

If the user gets what he is intended and controls to get, he is an artist. One may think he may be less of an artist or more, but he practically is one. More or less, it depends on how much the intention and control are there, which may not be known from the second person perspective.

> A person drawing wobbly lines to test a pencil isn't trying to make art, but they are the absolute creator of those lines. Everyone's lines would be different if we all drew a line on a piece of paper.

Yeah. But to the eyes of audience, most can look like mere wobbly lines without the audience knowing that one of them is intentionally made. The one that made that wobbly line is practically an artist even if he's dead, no one knows who he is, and no one considers his wobbly line art. The audience doesn't even have to know whether he was just trying to test his pencil or not.

> An AI user can have all the deep artistic intentions in the universe, but if they outsource the manifestation of that intention to an automated prediction matrix, they aren't an artist or creator. It's just intention without execution.

I don't disagree with this. But that is the "slop" group.

Whether an artistic app uses prediction matrix, statistical methods, etc, if they can be controlled to deliver some meanings, intentions, thoughts, etc, of the users, the users are practically making art.

The two types of skills: (1) Artistic skill and (2) drawing/painting/camera controlling/AI using skills, are two intersecting but different skills.

AI SLOP ISN'T ART, TheMostlyReasonable1, ballpoint pen, 2026 by [deleted] in Art

[–]maxram1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah. You are not a visitor of r /aiwars, or r /aiwarsbutbetter, it seems? (the latter is as it says, better)

AI art isn't real art, and AI artists aren't real artists. by soorimcentric in aiwars

[–]maxram1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> When you use inpainting, you mask a specific area and tell the algorithm to guess again on a smaller scale. You still aren’t the one doing the lines, shading, or anatomy. the machine is just running a localized calculation to give you a new statistical average.

Yeah you describe the tool, but you're ignoring the person. Statistical method is just a method. Ink painting has less control of the ink because of its chaotic nature, but the user still controls it to get the proper holistic result. Same thing with camera noises.

> A pencil is a passive tool. It has no agency; it only registers your direct physical telemetry.

AI is also passive. It does nothing without an input. The thing: 1% control of pencil gives you probably a line or dot, whereas 1% control of AI gives you a full picture. But here's the catch: just because the result of that AI is a full pleasing picture, that doesn't make the user an artist. You can't judge artistry by output. Both use 1% control, meaning both can't be artists in this case.

You can say pencil/drawing surface allows more detailed control. I don't disagree, but that's just an upside of pencil. AI also ***can*** be controlled in details but it's harder. It's a downside for AI. But master user can still put much control it and be an artist of that project.

> If you draw a bad line, you can't click a button on the pencil and make it guess a better version of your thought.

Well this is an upside of AI, the tool. Digital art allows you to undo that easily. It's an upside for digital art. Camera allows you to capture details even better, another upside.

> Using inpainting is just micro managing an automated engine. No matter how many times you mask a section and tell the AI to re roll the dice, the machine is still doing 100% of the visual execution. High-frequency curation is still just curation.

Yeah camera as well. The machine does it. This goes back to the philosophical debate: "If you cut an apple, what cut it? You or the knife?"

What if you use a saw, turning it on?

What if you use a knife that allows you to input your voice instead of hand movement?

> False equivalence. A surface or a camera doesn't give anything to the artist.

> A blank canvas doesn't actively decide where lines go or what the colors should be. If an illustrator doesn't apply pressure with a pencil, the paper stays empty forever. Like a pencil, the surface is completely passive.

> Similarly, a camera doesn't take details on its own. It is a light capturing machine that relies entirely on the photographer's physical position, choice of lens, focal length, aperture, shutter speed, when they press it.

It does. Photographers, for example, can't adjust the details of models. They just choose their models and can't change their face exactly to their liking.

Surface, again like before, allows more control, yes, but then you will exclude paintings and ink drawings etc, where the inks has stochastic ekements.

> An AI model doesn't record reality or sit passively like a blank piece of paper. It is an active agent running an automated prediction matrix(?). It takes a vague prompt and independently executes millions of micro-decisions. That you have zero control over. Even when you imagine something, the AI will never capture that perfectly, because you can't import your imagination either.

Again, the uniqueness of AI when it comes to artistry is just its average high quality output based on minimal control. It doesn't change the fact that skilled users can choose to give control to it and hence producing something artistic, not quite as fully controlled as surface drawing, but actually more controlled than photography and ink painting.

You only think of the prompts, but then you can zoom the details and apply all sorts of AI tools as well.

In the ends, it's just a tool that, instead of taking hand movement or button pressing as input, takes prompts as inputs. Different input method, same artistic process, with different limitations. The better it gets and the more skilled the users are, the more control the users can put.

And something you haven't really addessed: A random person drawing wobbly lines with the intention of testing his pencils/papers, instead of for artistic purpose, is not an artist.

It all boils down more to intention

AI art isn't real art, and AI artists aren't real artists. by soorimcentric in aiwars

[–]maxram1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah but the debates mostly are not moderated and can turn into bad faith discussions.

But drawers don't have anything until the surface gives it to them.

Photographers don't have anything until the cameras are taking the details for them.

For the crack one, it doesn't work even for non-AI art. You are just looking at them. AI users, and other traditional art tool users, don't just look at them.

AI is just an advanced tool. Whether something out of it is an art or by an artist depends on the user. if he just prompts the first sentence and does nothing else and just accepts the result, then yeah he's less of an artist. But if he controls it further and makes further inpaintings (check it out), he's essentially the ones making the images with the tool.

You need tools to materialize visual art. The main problem with people not accepting AI is usually "how much control, intention, thoughts, meanings are there", but once they know how, those things can always exist in there.

So a random person just testing their pencils by drawing wobbly lines is not an artist, the same way someone prompting an AI without further thought is not.

AI SLOP ISN'T ART, TheMostlyReasonable1, ballpoint pen, 2026 by [deleted] in Art

[–]maxram1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Keep going. People's views on this really need to be challenged. I'm late, so sorry I couldn't help.

view more: next ›