mechoman444

My dad’s dead.

Anyway. I think I’m done wasting your time. Good day. Good luck with… Whatever it is that you do.

You’re kinda dumb and full of yourself but I honestly do wish you the best.

🫡

SEE!!!

Didn’t read this one either.

But please do go on.

Wait no I just skimmed it. Are you calling me performative? 😂

Yeah I’m not wasting my time with whatever this chatgpt generated crap is.

You know I’ve actually never used this term before, but I think it’s actually warranted in this particular case… But ummm: touch grass.

And as part of the usual to bring everything back to the topic at hand: writing a prompt into a llm will not generate a 30-minute completed work of media. And the joke has run its course making it no longer funny which is the entire premise of this entire conversation which has never actually been addressed. Aside from erroneously calling it a straw man.

Also the whole confident aloof I’m above it all attitude. Yeah it really doesn’t work for you.

There is nothing more dangerous than a stupid person that thinks they’re smart.

Nebraska is 77,347 square miles—roughly the size of your confirmation bias. I hope that helps.

There was so much superfluous nonsense in your comment that I only skimmed it. Frankly, it isn’t worth my time trying to decipher whatever it is you think you’re being clever about when you aren’t.

More importantly, I never said you made a straw man argument. I’m saying you’re demonstrating confirmation bias. You’ve already decided that any evidence I present will be dismissed because you apparently cannot fathom a circumstance in which AI is useful.

That, by itself, makes any meaningful conversation between us impossible. At this point, I would normally devolve into name-calling and being outright mean, but honestly, I’m just tired of arguing this point. You sound like an idiot parading around as an intellectual, and frankly, it’s becoming kind of gross.

To be consistent, I’ll reiterate the point you have completely failed to address throughout this entire conversation: you cannot simply write a prompt into a flagship LLM and expect it to produce a fully finished, 30-minute production. That premise is fundamentally flawed, and at this point, the joke has run its course. It’s simply not funny anymore.

Also, It is still beyond funny how you keep defining straw man and not understanding it. It is truly impressive that you keep doing this. I wish I could be there when the realization dawns on you and you get that cold feeling in your legs that you made it completely fool of yourself.

I wrote a whole thing in retort to this and then I copied and pasted the wrong thing and I lost all of it.

Bottom line, you don’t know what a straw man is. You’re still using it incorrectly.

You have confirmation bias the size of Nebraska. I don’t need to provide you with any proof because you’re not going to accept it anyway. You’ve literally indicated that twice at this point.

I will simply once again reiterate my point. Pipeline production of AI generated media isn’t as simple as writing a prompt into grok and having it churn out a fully completed 30-minute video. That is not a straw man. That’s hardly even an argument. It is more objective observation than anything else. The joke is on its course. It is irritating and no longer funny.

deleted by creator

My argument this entire time has been that this joke has run its course. People are not claiming that they are “AI artists” simply because they put a prompt into an LLM.

Obviously, you are capable of understanding that. My example was hyperbolic and exaggerated. You provided me with the definition of a straw man and still somehow have no idea what a straw man actually is.

My example is not a straw man because I did not substitute one argument for another—specifically, one that would be easier to attack or defend. In fact, I didn’t even make a substantive argument in the first place. I was merely expressing, as I have said approximately a thousand times now, that the joke has run its course.

The channels I provided do not make AI slop. I would venture to say that, to you, literally everything is AI slop. As a matter of fact, you even admitted that you have seen nothing generated by AI that interests you. That is, in itself, a massive example of confirmation bias. Why should I give much weight to your opinion when you have already made it clear that you are unwilling to entertain the possibility that AI can produce something worthwhile or be used to do something genuinely useful?

What I’ve noticed in general is that, as soon as someone starts throwing around the names of logical fallacies, the quality of the conversation tends to degrade significantly. You have made it abundantly clear that you do not understand what a straw man is, how the fallacy is actually used, or how to identify one. At this point, I would almost venture to say that you would label anything a straw man if it doesn’t conform to whatever position you already hold.

And yes, I fully acknowledge that you may not like the same things I like, particularly when it comes to art. That’s perfectly reasonable. But there are objective categories of quality that you can acknowledge even when something isn’t to your personal taste, and you seem completely unwilling to concede that possibility when AI is involved.

And why on God’s green earth would I ever go back to Reddit when I have people like you to talk to here on Lemmy?

Also the formatting of your… Jesus man. Way too much effort. I have to go up and open every spoiler tag just to respond to what you’re saying. Maybe just right in paragraphs so it’s easier to work with.

So I wrote everything you see above.

It’s not ai generated. Those are my words.

Prove it. Show me evidence that there is an abundance of people claiming that they are artists because they write a prompt into an llm.

It is ironic that you do not understand what a straw man argument is, cannot use the term correctly, and then proceed to commit one against me. You are inventing a position that is easier to argue against, despite the fact that I never took that position in the first place.

I have no idea what having sex with machines has to do with a straw man argument. Nor is there some way to use the term “straw man” colloquially that would make your usage correct. If anything, that tells me you do not understand what “colloquially” means either.

I did not say the joke is irrelevant. I said the joke has run its course and has become irritating. There is a distinction. More importantly, that is not how people are actually making good AI content. The sources I provided are anything but slop. They demonstrate legitimate uses of AI tools and actual production pipelines being used to create worthwhile content.

Obviously, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You may not find that content interesting, and that’s fine. But I would assume at this point that your inability to acknowledge when something is good or bad has more to do with the fact that AI was involved than with the actual quality of the work.

Why are you people like this on this platform? You literally cannot rebut what I actually said, and you cannot defend your own position, so you invent a different position that is easier to attack. Stop doing this. It is ridiculous.

It is okay to admit that some AI-generated content is good. It is also okay to admit that some AI-generated content is bad. Saying, “Hey, this is actually good,” is not betraying the cause. You are allowed to acknowledge quality even when you dislike the technology involved.

You’re the second person to say that you’re not going to read this. Why even bother telling me this just don’t read it and move on.

I’ll tell you what I told the first guy.

Go fuck yourself.

Two things.

1. You don’t know what a straw man is. It is the single most misused logical fallacy in existence.

2. Can you provide proof that there are people demanding that they be recognized for their 3-minute long AI prompted videos?

Because I just don’t see that happening. I don’t see a large body of people demanding they be recognized for their “art” for your example provided as in a short clip generated by AI hobbled together by some editing.

I could refer you to some YouTube channels that actually use AI tools to make phenomenal videos, but I doubt you’d actually care to look at them. But I’ll do it anyway…

Gossip Goblin

The archive in between

My point once again is that the joke has run its course. There is no abundance of people demanding they be recognized for AI slop.

They actually do. I’ve seen this on AI chat bot sites. People won’t allow people to read the prompt/personality of the bot because they get all butt hurt when someone just copys and pastes their “work” it’s really cringe because it’s a basic llm. It’s not some flagship model or anything like that. It doesn’t care, at all.

I want y’all to know I took a deep breath before writing this.

Writing AI prompts does not make someone an artist. Nobody is seriously contesting that, and nobody is claiming otherwise.

But you also can’t just type, “Hey Grok, make me a 30-minute video recreating the entire Cell Saga,” and have a finished production magically appear. That’s not how this works.

There is an actual pipeline involved. Multiple AI applications and other software, compositing, editing, sound design, music, voice acting, visual direction, continuity, revisions, and an enormous amount of human labor. Some of these projects involve hundreds of hours of actual work. The AI is a tool within that process; it isn’t a magic button that produces a finished piece of media from a sentence.

And I know, I know, AI is the literal Antichrist around here. I get it. But this caricature of what people are actually doing with AI is becoming a massive misrepresentation of the technology.

It’s getting irritating because I see this constantly now. The same joke, over and over, based on the assumption that someone typed a single sentence into an LLM and somehow produced an entire film, song, animation, or game.

At this point, I don’t know if some of y’all are intentionally ignorant about what LLMs and generative AI actually do, or if you just enjoy reflexively hating the technology. Either way, the joke has run its course.

It isn’t funny anymore. It’s just inaccurate.

While I totally agree with this the irony is china turned out to be the slightly less evil capitalist than America. And only because of their one party system.

As an American China doesn’t have to steal our tech. They’ve already surpassed America in every measurable metric except for Gdp and consumption which isn’t really a win at all.