The Dank Memegician

You and I both know why you are avoiding answering the question.

You arnt fooling anyone with your ad hominem attacks.

Be honest, you’re the kid who took his ball and went home the moment he started losing growing up huh? You know, the kid no one wanted to play with because he thought being a pandantic contrarian was a personality.

Don’t worry, you dont have to answer.

Its obvious.

Cool ad hominem.

Ok, ill make this simple.

Did I use AI to generate this art?

Yes or no?

The only one making a fool out of themselves is you. Im not claiming anything about your position that you didn’t clearly state yourself.

The little robot that cleans is a tool. Only a fool would claim it is anything else.

When I turn on a vacuum and push it around I am using a TOOL to clean my house.

When I turn on the cleaning robot to clean my house, im using a TOOL to clean my house.

When i set a pre-programmed schedule for that little autonomous cleaning robot to clean my house every Wednesday I am STILL USING A TOOL TO CLEAN MY HOUSE.

Your argument is that there is some imaginary arbitrary % of work done at which the tool is no longer being used to fulfill a task and it somehow magically becomes an “entity” completing the task all on its own.

I dont need to lie about your position, I spent several comments pinning it down with various questions to make sure it was properly fleshed out before I broke it down and addressed it.

The part that is ACTUALLY unbelievable is that you are getting mad at me because you dont fully understand your own position on the topic and you are clearly incapable of extrapolating the conclusions of the arguments you are putting forward.

EITHER:

Ai is a tool humans use to complete a task in which case I used ai to make this art

Or

Its its own living entity completing tasks on its own, of its own free will in which case I didn’t make the art

There is no “third option” where AI is both a tool used in completing a task and also an entity that completes a task all on its own like you seem to want so badly to believe.

Now who’s avoiding.

First things first, my oven is voice activated. Point one, me.

So, just so we are clear here…your position is that AI is its own living entity and therefore NOT a tool.

Neat

If that’s the case then in your view, no. I didn’t make it. The “alive” ai I instructed to make it did.

In my view tho, the AI isnt alive and therefore is a tool I used to make the art…which means the only “flaw” in my argument is that you beleive AIs are alive.

So, when you gonna start advocating for AI rights? Or do you think AIs should stay enslaved to humanity?

Im not avoiding the question. Im illustrating the logical conclusion of your argument.

Can a hammer build a house on its own? You can tell a hammer to build a house until your blue in the face but it wont because its inanimate. It is not alive.

If the “baker” in question is my oven that’s doing the baking then yes, I baked the cake.

If the “baker” in question is another human that is using an oven to do the baking then no, I didn’t bake the cake.

So either a human using an inanimate tool like AI to create something counts as the human making that thing and therefore ai art is art because it is made by a human using a tool

OR

AI is its own living conscious individual self and the art it creates isnt made by the human telling it to make the art…in which case your argument is that AI is alive and the art it creates isnt art because ONLY humans can create art(animals and potential alien life be damned).

So which is it. Is AI a tool used by humans or is it alive?

So AI a tool used by humans then?

Are you arguing that the AI is its own conscious individual?

I made it with AI.

I came up with the prompt all on my own.

Counter point: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=awT7o0gqgK8&pp=ygUdbWlsbGVubmlhbCBjcmluZ2UgY29tcGlsYXRpb24%3D

So I should ask the Nobel prize winner to find out he doesn’t have an opinion on the matter and that is supposed to be evidence that it doesn’t work?

Haruo Ozaki made his recommendation to use Ivermectin as a treatment for covid on February 9th, 2021. Not exactly “early days” of the pandemic. It was well over a year into the virus spreading and nearly a year into it officially being a pandemic.

As far as I can tell there is no “current consensus” regarding Ivermectin outside of the mainstream narrative that its “deboonked conservative quackery”. Looking into it further there seems to be one side that is willing to point to clinical data like Haruo did when making his recommendation and one side reflexively demonizing it as “horse paste” because the main stream media told them that hospitals were “overflowing” with “ivermectin overdoses”. Its only when pushed that they then point to these more recent studies that supposedly “definitively show” ivermectine is ineffective.

Coincidently, only one of these positions seems to have a financial incentive for big pharma but im sure that’s not relevant to the conversation.

Looking at the timeline of events regarding Ivermectin there isnt a single study from before the topic became a political issue that found it to be ineffective. As soon as it became a political topic of contention however we suddenly get several studies with dubious funding(all of which can be traced to certain key players who stood to gain financially from ivermectines being found ineffective) and questionalble methodology like using much lower and more infrequent dosing saying that its ineffective…but as with much of the conversation surrounding the vid we get “the experts agree”, “the consensus is” and my favorite “the science is settled”.

Anyone who’s actually looked into the matter and is honest would conclude that at best, we still dont actually know whether its effective or not because the more recent studies on the matter seem to have gone out of their way to ensure that any effect from the ivermectin wouldn’t be found.

Did you have a stroke and respond to the wrong comment or something? Here is an AI generated picture of you having a stroke and responding to the wrong comment:

Computers cant make art. DUBSTEP isnt comparable to what some people said about techno at some point. Its a pretty simple concept: computers cant generate music because it just generates sounds stolen from REAL instrument made music. Only humans playing on instruments can make music.

Damn, you woulda fit right in with the early 90’s techno hate crowd or the late 2000’s dubstep hate crowd.

This is AI art I made of you writing this comment. Seems like i found the perfect place for AI art.

“Not defacto hating everything AI == defending big AI” is exactly the kinda low IQ take I was talking about.

Is the “big AI” im defending in the room with us right now?

Saying its different doesn’t make it different. That exact argument was made when techno first came out.

Its not even an accurate argument in most cases as both AI art and AI music still take creative input from the end user to make in any meaningful way. I’ve heard some really funny AI songs people have made by inputting their own lyrics in and tweaking the results until the AI generated song was what they had pictured in their head. Same goes for AI generated art. I’ve seen some funny ass AI generated memes.

Don’t get me wrong, AI generated slop is definitely slop worthy of mockery but not everything AI generated is slop and some of it takes real effort to make.

Thats like saying EDM isnt music, its just noise. REAL music takes the conscious use of skill to play a REAL instrument. Not just make noises with a computer.

Yea they do, to be fair there is legit reasons to hate on AI art…however there is also a place for AI art. Hating AI art just because its generated by AI is just bandwagon behavior from low IQ losers.

Thats crazy, must be why all those news organizations had to make up stories about people going untreated from gun shot wounds because the hospitals were overwhelmed with people overdosing on ivermectin.

I remember the chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association Haruo Ozaki publicly recommending the use of ivermectin for treating covid based on several observational studies but I dont remember either of the people who won the Nobel prize for ivermectin ever publicly stating anything about its use in treating covid.

Only horse parties tho right? I dont wanna do something stupid like win a Nobel prize for using it to treat humans.

Wait, are we still pretending like ivermectin is only a horse drug?