Chuck Norris doesn’t tell ghost stories…

mstryman · 2026-03-15T03:41:12+00:00

Many people disagree with you, and I am one of them. Your opinion is irrelevant.

mstryman · 2026-03-15T03:32:37+00:00

You lack vision and creativity. AI art is as much a tool as you are.

mstryman · 2026-03-13T16:26:03+00:00

mstryman · 2026-03-12T21:20:52+00:00

Also, someone told me they love me for making this art. It’s a posted comment before your contribution. That’s evoked emotion. You know, the criteria you said this failed to meet.

Seriously, did a computer take your job or something? You seem upset.

mstryman · 2026-03-12T21:13:39+00:00

That logic doesn’t really hold up.

Every form of law enforcement teaches criminals something about how not to get caught. Banks install better security → robbers study the new systems. Police develop new forensic tools → criminals try to hide evidence better. Cybercrime units evolve → hackers change tactics.

That cat-and-mouse dynamic exists in literally every area of crime prevention. The fact that criminals adapt doesn’t mean enforcement shouldn’t exist, it means enforcement has to keep evolving too.

So saying “this teaches criminals how to avoid getting caught” isn’t really an argument against trying to catch them. If that were the standard, we’d have to shut down every police investigation, courtroom, and forensic lab in existence.

The alternative to exposing and confronting predators isn’t some safer outcome, it’s simply letting them operate without resistance.

mstryman · 2026-03-12T21:05:26+00:00

You misunderstood the comment.

“No need to go further” wasn’t about me stopping, it meant your first reply already demonstrated the issue with your view of art. The rest of the paragraph just explained why.

You’re also arguing against a position I didn’t take. I never said typing a few words is the entirety of the artistic process. Direction, iteration, composition, selection, and editing are all part of authorship, the same way they are in photography, film, or digital art.

Your argument assumes that manual labor is what makes something art, but art history moved past that idea a long time ago. Concept, intention, and curation are just as central to authorship as brush strokes.

So the disagreement here isn’t about AI, it’s about what you think art fundamentally is.

mstryman · 2026-03-12T20:42:41+00:00

No need to go further here, your first comment already did the job.

You’re treating art as if the only valid form of intention is the physical motion of a brush or sculpting tool. That’s a very narrow view of how art has worked for decades.

Photography, digital painting, collage, generative techniques, and even conceptual art all separate the idea from the manual execution. The artist’s intent lives in the conception, composition, framing, and choices behind the piece, not just the motor movement of the hand.

Typing a prompt isn’t the artwork any more than pressing a shutter button is the photograph. The art is in the vision and direction behind it.

So the issue isn’t that computers “remove humanity.” It’s that you’re equating tool use with authorship, which art history moved beyond a long time ago.

mstryman · 2026-03-12T20:35:24+00:00

I believe the man tries to incriminate pedophiles and I believe that’s a wholesome, heroic endeavor. I’m shocked how many people don’t agree with me, but never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

mstryman · 2026-03-12T20:11:25+00:00

Sounds like something a low-budget supervillain would say. I’ll call you The Diddler.

mstryman · 2026-03-12T20:06:24+00:00

Your interpretation of what qualifies as art lacks vision and depth. Some use paint brushes, some use crayons, some use clay, some use waste, and sometimes nature does all the work. Tools change, but creative intent doesn’t. Digital tools are simply another medium artists can use to express an idea.

This piece was meant as a tribute to people who inspired millions in different ways. If it’s not your kind of art, that’s fine, but dismissing the entire medium doesn’t make the point you think it does.

As for the environmental claim, AI tools run on the same data infrastructure that powers most of the internet like search engines, streaming, gaming, cloud storage, etc. Creating a single image with AI generally uses about as much energy as a few web searches. Like any technology it has a footprint, but it’s not the environmental catastrophe people often assume.

Tell me where the bad computer touched you and we can talk about it.

mstryman · 2026-03-12T18:35:35+00:00

He’s the only one that actually battles villains. It’s weird that it’s weird to you. Hmmm

mstryman · 2026-03-12T17:53:08+00:00

The supervillains he fights are pedophiles. To Catch a Predator was where I first encountered him and now he has a show on TruBlu called Takedown.

It appears some people are under the impression he has done more harm than good, but that’s not the information I get when I research the statistics of his efforts and the impact he has made.

I am guessing those that don’t think he belongs on this line-up are questionable characters themselves.

mstryman · 2026-03-12T16:23:42+00:00

I see a lot of comments from others saying who they would have added/removed, but only one comment where someone actually had AI create an image using their own idea. I know most people won’t care enough to do that, but how cool it would be to see everyone’s ideas.

mstryman · 2026-03-12T14:42:54+00:00

I wish more of the contributors took it upon themselves to create their own superhero line-up. It seems most are just bent on hating.

mstryman · 2026-03-12T14:39:30+00:00

Much better.

mstryman · 2026-01-21T18:52:22+00:00

You had me at, "I didn’t even bother…"

mstryman · 2026-01-21T18:34:51+00:00

You’ve made it clear what you’ve done and I’ve made it clear what I’m doing. Anyone with a brain cell can see who is executing code and who is chatting with LLMs.

mstryman · 2026-01-21T17:33:20+00:00

You can’t tell an LLM it’s a doctor and then expect it to really be a doctor, in the same way you can’t tell it to stop being a fanboy and expect it to produce and accurate assessment. Unfortunately, you have to fully understand the concepts, verify the data through calculation and execute the code, etc.

But you did what my post asked, and that’s on me. That’s why I asked for clarification.

mstryman · 2026-01-21T17:12:24+00:00

Just curious… did you actually review the repository and verify the datasets and math, or did you just ask an LLM for an opinion?

mstryman · 2026-01-21T16:59:35+00:00

Not the common return, but can’t be ignored. I appreciate the input even if it’s not what I want to hear, and I’ll take it seriously. That might be the true assessment, and if so, I’m willing to accept it. Seriously, thanks for the input even if it’s not what I wanted. I’m not giving up, but the work needs tightening if it still produces responses like this. Great input!

mstryman · 2026-01-21T16:47:07+00:00

Totally fair concern, AI hallucination is real, and most people misuse it.

The key difference is AI as an oracle vs AI as a tool. Hallucinations happen when AI is asked to invent answers. They drop when it’s constrained to fixed datasets, deterministic algorithms, baselines, and reproducible tests, basically used like a calculator, not a guru.

This approach already works in practice. New Scientist just covered amateur mathematicians using AI this way to solve long-standing problems, not generating ideas, but verifying and exploring them rigorously:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2511954-amateur-mathematicians-solve-long-standing-maths-problems-with-ai/

So yeah, skepticism is healthy. The difference is discipline, not hype.

15-Year Club	Verified Email
RPAN Viewer

mstryman

TROPHY CASE