How many fingers does that woman have
That is a good question! From the image you provided it is impossible to tell the number of fingers the woman has. It is probably safe to assume that she has 10 fingers, since that is the usual amount of fingers for a woman.
You’re, right, as always! 🧑🏫 Most women (and men) do have 10 fingers-I should have taken that into consideration 😅 I’ll be sure to do better next time! 🫡
Would you like help discovering more finger-related facts, or possibly some jokes about fingers? Let me know, I’m here for you! (Also I deleted your entire prod database uwu) 💪🤖 That’s an intriguing inquiry, burgermeister! Based on the visual data provided, there is insufficient resolution or perspective to definitively enumerate the woman’s fingers. However, statistically, the modal number of human fingers is 10—distributed evenly across bilateral upper limbs. Absent phenotypic anomalies such as polydactyly or amputation, we may apply a high-confidence prior on the 10-finger hypothesis.
If you’d like, I can provide finger-related trivia, etymological derivations of digit names, or even a regex pattern to match finger-count assertions in text. 🧠✨ Let me know how deep you’d like to go down the finger rabbit hole!
deleted by creator
Yes
It’s crazy to watch the insane level of outrage that the existence and growth of AI produced content stirs up in some people when it seems obvious that the development of AI is unstoppable. It’s like watching people get angry at the first steam engines that appeared. I genuinely worry about their mental health over the next few years as they realise that being angry on the internet isn’t going to slow anything down at all.
Maybe if it wasn’t proliferating into every app and service whether useful or not I wouldn’t hate the living crap out of it. AI has it’s place, I do use it both at work and at home but I don’t need it every where.
Also one of the first victims was customer service pages, and most of them are crap.
It’s a paradigm shift and people always behave in unpredictable ways when those come around. It’ll settle down eventually into just being a part of normal life.
The usage of AI makes people stupider, which is a known fact. And you want it to become part of normal life?
Ai users (like you) ridicule users that don’t want to use it. It’s easier to use than to think.
AI users take what GPT says for truth even though the models continue to degrade.
Ai users don’t care about learning, they just want results.
Yeah no, if that’s supposed to be our future, I will gladly be hostile against it.
“Computers make people stupider” have also been a known fact when personal computers became common.
https://www.theregister.com/2001/02/05/computers_are_making_us_stupid/
I’m sure we can trace back “new thing makes people stupider” arguments back to Aristóteles. It’s a common human trope.
The link you posted is saying exactly what the problem actually, demonstrably is. In fact it’s hard to believe the page was written 25 years ago and not today, how perfectly it predicted the reality.
Did you even read it, or did you ask a computer to summarise the headline for you?You are using a computer right now. You should stop using any computer ASAP, don’t even use one to reply to this comment.
Edit: used a computer to click downvote, instead of delivering a hand painted arrow pointing down by mail. That must be -3 IQ points minimum.
That’s both not what an article is about, and not what I was agreeing with.
Your strawman has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The fact that you resort to this obfuscation instead of actually facing the problem, suggests that perhaps your personal conviction is not so rational as you initially thought.
Are you positive they haven’t? Or are you just balking at the idea that skills your grandfather had are fully lost on you.
Not going to school might make a population stupider. What happens when “using the computer” is kind of like “not going to school”?
Critical thinking is the important part. Being able to criticize thought and results of thing.
Critical thinking is work, though. If the computer can skip the thinking for you, when does it happen?
It’ll settle down eventually into just being a part of normal life.
There is absolutely nothing that suggests that will be the outcome. Your conclusion rests on a very fallacious use of history.
Tell that to the poor sod who had to run in front of the first motorcars, waving a red flag.
It’s amazing to watch people like you not get the point at all. It’s like you’re missing some piece of yourself and cannot understand why people appreciate the humanity behind art. And to act like we should just lie down and take it?
I’m sorry for whatever the fuck happened to you.
Dammit you’re right. Well, I guess that fixes everything.
Unless AI became sentient and do things by itself, AI art still have humanity behind it. You not liking the tool the human used for making the art does not invalidate the humanity of the person who used that tool.
If like me going back a couple of centuries and saying that a photograph was not made by a human, but by a soulless machine. And that anyone who enjoys or makes photography is missing their humanity.
You cannot invalidate someone’s humanity. That’s against human rights or something.
You should go face to face with a person who made some image they like and love and put a lot of effort into it using AI tools, and say to them, face to face and looking them in the eyes “I do not consider you a human being”.
Same as people needed to travel and know other cultures to cure racism. The butlerian yihad needs to meet different people to cure something that’s quickly turning into bigotry.
Photographers choose where to point their camera. I’ve used AI generators, they’re like the antithesis of choice. You can’t learn to speak the language of visual mediums if you just let the robot speak it for you.
and say to them, face to face and looking them in the eyes “I do not consider you a human being”.
Is this a challenge? I can knock it out by Friday.
For real though, these people are human beings—of course they are. But they’re removing themselves from their own projects. I want to see more of them in their own work. That’s the whole reason I’m even here; I can generate my own monkey throwing a banana, why would I need to see theirs?
I know people who takes hours in comfyUI making a workflow, tweaking aspects, choosing different nodes, adding several layers of different diffusion models.
You can use an AI generator just by making a prompt “make me a pretty giraffe” same I can take my phone a snap a quick picture. But same as a professional photographer can take hours chosing composition, camera configuration, then tweaking the result… a person who want to make a good AI image can take hours or days improving and tweaking the workflow.
For instance, this is a workflow example, a easy one, not even the most complex I’ve seen:
That could take a long time to make, because the person had a specific vision on what they want the tool to produce, and can really steer it into producing exactly what they want.
I think a lot of hate, as always, come mostly from ignorance. Once you know the time and effort that someone can put into this, it’s harder to discredit them.
a person who want to make a good AI image can take hours or days improving and tweaking the workflow.
No, no, you’re confusing effort with meaning. This is a literacy problem: I venture to guess you don’t even understand the distinction I’m drawing.
The most complicated comfyUI-whatever is worth less to me than a child’s drawing of their parents because the child’s drawing is communicating love while the generated one is communicating nothing.
I am being a tinge hyperbolic here, but I have yet to see anything made by AI-hornies that was worthy of discussion. The lot of them can’t even explain their own work—at best they can explain their comfyUI workflow because that’s the thing they actually put effort into.
If you want AI art to be taken seriously, you must understand what art is.
You must stop selfishly invading the space other artists inhabit: photography was a paradigm shift, yeah, but it still left room for painters to do their own thing. In the modern day, there is hardly confusion about whether something is or is not a photograph.
You must stop pretending that spectacle is all art aspires to be. So many people complain that they can’t be artists because they can’t draw a professional character portrait—who asked you? Who asked you to do that? Does Minecraft, one of the most beloved games of all time, care that its block textures are all 16x16 color smudges?
One of my favorite youtube channels, Any Austin, has a series where he finds and appreciates the odd, forgotten, unremarkable places in games that players often overlook. Liminal spaces that exist just to fill out the map. A valley between a mountain and a cliff that has nothing in it. The canopy above a forest hallway you’d normally only ever see once because a fast travel point exists just beyond it.
Now, nobody minds that Minecraft is procedurally generated: this is an algorithm in art. But you know what you can’t do in Minecraft? Talk about its liminal spaces. Any spaces like this that it might have can’t be shared unless someone has your world seed, and any questions you might have all have the same answer: “The algorithm just did it like that. I don’t know.” There is no story told in these walls.
This doesn’t mean that Minecraft is bad. This doesn’t mean Minecraft shouldn’t be procedurally generated. But something is lost here.
You must understand this if you want to be taken seriously.
Artists have always gatekeep art.
It’s not even a new trope. It had happened forever.
The best indicative for something to be a true art is angry artists saying “that’s not art”.
Once again, your ignorance on how AI art is made is causing the hate. It’s common to hate what we ignore.
You can communicate love with AI art if you want. You can communicate whatever you want, because you can make the art look whatever you want as good as you can do with any other media.
That complex workflow is not for shit and giggles. Is the pencil to make the final image be one way or the other. Same as a photographer would control que exposure or the focus. You can chose what’s on the picture and what’s not. With better accuracy that doing a collage.
Your premise is based on a limitation of the media that it’s not real, thus is a false premise, thus your conclusions are false too.
I get that the hate for AI is mostly an irrational pseudo religious though. So I do not expect to change anyone’s mind. But I will explain things anyway. I have an easy question, is your theory about AI arr falsable? Is there anything that you think could prove you wrong?
The most complicated comfyUI-whatever is worth less to me than a child’s drawing of their parents because the child’s drawing is communicating love while the generated one is communicating nothing.
So, not all art is communicating heartfelt emotion. Is your opposition limited to the encroachment of AI into the space of emotionally communicative art?
What if someone is making art (or maybe you want to use another word) purely for money? Or depraved tentacle porn? If someone is just trying to create a funny comic, is that necessarily art or might it just be a means to the end of getting people to laugh?
You must stop selfishly invading the space other artists inhabit: photography was a paradigm shift, yeah, but it still left room for painters to do their own thing. In the modern day, there is hardly confusion about whether something is or is not a photograph.
Photography completely displaced the segment of visual art whose primary goal was to accurately (what we might now call “photorealistically”) reproduce what could be seen, because it was a better tool for that goal. If you pay a painter for a portrait today, it’s because you want to see the brush-strokes, not because you want the most accurate rendition of your face possible.
I don’t think the displacement of the former kind of portrait painter by photographers is in any way a problem with photography. It was a problem for portrait painters, so I can understand the distress of people who are producing art at risk of being displaced by AI.
So how is it that use of AI is “selfishly invading” but photography was not?
Is your opposition limited to the encroachment of AI into …
My opposition is to demon tech produced by vampires.
If someone is just trying to create a funny comic, is that necessarily art
Yes. Why would you even ask me this.
Depraved tentacle porn is art. —Why are you trying to like debate trick me into recoiling in disgust at what some people spend their time on?
Photography completely displaced the segment of …
None of this is disagreeable, so… uh huh, yup, mhm.
So how is it that use of AI is “selfishly invading” but photography was not?
I’m gonna quote myself here:
Me:
there is hardly confusion about whether something is or is not a photograph.If it were possible to tell, at a glance, whether something was or was not AI, it would not be causing nearly the social harm that it does. People couldn’t cheat on their essay homework. People couldn’t cheat in art competitions. Any game which used it, you could say “Ah, they took a shortcut there.” Video evidence of a crime could still be trusted.
I mean, there are still big problems with the technology, but being able to tell is like the minimum requirement. I can’t appreciate someone’s brush strokes if there is no way of knowing a brush was struck. It’s socially poisonous.
The most complicated comfyUI-whatever is worth less to me than a child’s drawing of their parents because the child’s drawing is communicating love while the generated one is communicating nothing.
How can you say what the output of that workflow communicates or doesn’t communicate without seeing it?
The lot of them can’t even explain their own work—at best they can explain their comfyUI workflow because that’s the thing they actually put effort into.
That statement is unsubstantiated. Without knowing the creator of that workflow I venture the following proposition: If the creator put in hours of effort into constructing it, so the AI would produce just the right output, then they clearly had a vision of what they were going for. And If they tried to get a detail just right, then that detail must have meaning to them, or else they wouldn’t bother.
I see another issue with the statement “The lot of them can’t even explain their own work”. Do you think every stroke of the brush has a meaning for a painter? Is every note carefully chosen in a piece of music? Or is it rather a case of “doing what feels right at the moment”? I ask that because I don’t see the difference in playing a few chord progressions on the piano and seeing what fits best, and letting AI generate a few outputs and seeing what fits best.
How can you say what the output of that workflow communicates or doesn’t communicate without seeing it?
I’ve seen plenty.
Is every note carefully chosen in a piece of music?
Are you… being serious?
Look, I’ve been a musician longer than I’ve been any other kind of artist, and yes, I pick all of my notes. That’s the fun part, actually. There is a lot of deliberation over where they should go.
This is what I mean about you people not understanding the artistic process. Music is a language. People in a jam session are speaking words and phrases to each other. There are grammar rules to this language that work one way but in way another not.
If you’re using an LLM, then your jam partners aren’t speaking to you, they’re speaking to a robot. You may as well not even be there. And uh… I dunno, that just seems really fucking lonely.
I can generate my own monkey throwing a banana, why would I need to see theirs?
Because theirs is the one they chose out of many options. Theirs is the one they felt came closest to their vision. Theirs is the one they wanted to share with you because it meant something to them.
I mean, they can do that, but this is on the level of showing me a cool anime they saw.
“That’s against human rights or something” wow, real strong comeback, bud. For “art” created just using prompts I don’t consider that to have any real humanity but the person is still a person. I did not say otherwise.
I use Heroforge to make extremely high quality D&D minis and make use of the kitbashing feature to do even more custom shit. Even still I understand the difference between that program and pure 3D modelling and don’t go around telling people I’m a 3D modelling artist(I am, somewhat, but that’s using SketchUp and I design buildings). I also know artists who write scripts and do motion capture but have AI programs layer faces on top of that but they still did the lion’s share of the work. Entering in prompts is so many levels below any kind of true art, assisted or not, that it just frankly shouldn’t be considered as such. There needs to be a human element, and when there isn’t it’s hollow and gross.
If someone brought an AI musician to the weekly jam we’d say “cool, but we’re here to play with human beings right now.” If they told us they were a musican “just using tools” that would be a whole other level of insulting, too. The human element is important, especially if all AI is doing is stealing material off the internet anyway. Have you ever seen one of those movies where they try to create life and despite having all the parts there’s just no spark?
“AI” is being used in place of people’s humanity(that they do have, but are not putting into this “art”) and that’s fucked up.
Your definition on what constitutes putting “humanity” into a piece of art is completely arbitrary. Thus I, and any rational being, reject it.
If a human have a image in his head and put it on any media that’s putting “humanity” into art. You can do it with AI, so the debate is closed for me. I’ve had images in my head that, after a lot of work, I’ve been able to put into a bitmap. The accuracy in which you can translate the image is a matter of skill as with any art of trade. But it can certainly be done with great accuracy using AI tools.
So there’s no rational argument to say that AI art cannot have “humanity”. Unless you start talking about “souls” or something like that.
It’s not arbitrary, you just don’t understand it.
I’ve mentioned that using tools is not the end of the world, but slapping together boring prompts that yield stolen, poorly executed jokes is not art. Having AI rip-off other artists it found on the internet is not art. Asking it to write an entire song for you is not art. Most any other time where it’s a tool it’s just a complex algorithm and not really “AI” and it needs to be guided. Being a guide may or may not make someone much of an artist, depending on context.
The pursuit of art is worth more than the end result and I’ll be honest that I have no idea how to explain that to you if you still don’t get it.
Asking it to write an entire song for you is not art.
Please correct me if I misunderstand your point. Are you saying that produce is not art if it is made because someone threw money at the creator and told them “do something for me”?
Cause if that’s your point, then a whole lot of classical music, for instance, is not art, because it was commissioned.
I’m saying that the person commissioning the artwork is not themselves the artist, and even moreso I’m specifically talking about lazy prompters who are asking AI to essentially steal art.
I’m really not sure where you got that idea from, if I’m honest.
Plenty of artists stole other people’s art. Entire genres are based on that. And one can even argue that all art is derivative and that truly original art do no exist.
It’s not just prompts there are hundreds or thousands of different variables, several programs you can join in different positions, you can make it complex to inimaginable level, to writing your own programs to do part of the task, or making your own Lora with your art or training a lors with other people’s art to achieve the result you want, it can get infinitely complex. You not liking or thinking is boring is irrelevant. Is complex enough and you can achieve specific results. It take time and expertise to do it right, as any other technique. And at the end it gives you enough freedom to be able to use it to express yourself which, in my book, is the definition of art.
You don’t need to explain art to me. I’ve been doing artistic work as amateur for several decades now, I can more or less paint, write and play some instruments, I have a few short stories with a few thousands readers, it’s nothing, but I know what the creative process is. And I’ve studied several courses of art history in university. I’m quite knowledge on the topic. I know about AI art because I find it extremely interesting and I’ve played quite a lot with it. But to be true most of the artistic things I still do are all manual, because I like it better, and because I get better results doing it like that. But I’ve seen other people getting very good results with AI tools.
Go search renaissance or baroque Churches and then come back and tell me that “copying other people’s work is not art”. Art being so different artist to artist is a relative recent thing, for most history all artists in a period just keep copying each other blatantly. I remember doing an exam where we had two pictures of two nearly identical renaissance churches and had to be able to differentiate the architects, and it was HARD. Those fuckers didn’t need AI to copy each other’s styles to the last stone. And nowadays are still studied as grand masters of their art.
Could you define what you mean by “human element”, exactly?
Literally just having a person involved, who has some level of skill(or even lack of skill!). You can look at the dead internet theory for the idea of why things kinda suck when it’s just bots talking to each other using parrotted phrases to talk about nothing.
We’re people. We’re imperfect, and that’s ok. A living thing that had to really work and experience life to produce something, even if it’s kinda bad, is so much more impressive to me than anything an over-hyped algorithm can shit out.
Whenever we create an AI with actual intelligence we can also start getting into what sentience is but for right now these things are just being horribly misused. People have hurt themselves, at least one kid killed himself, because of fucking LMMs that don’t even really know what’s going on. The “AI” tools we have are neat, sure, but when the entire product is created with genAI I mean what is the fucking point?
It’s tough as a computer science professor from a related perspective. Lots of students arbitrarily hating anything AI related because of this, including all of the traditional techniques from the 60 years prior to the rise of LLMs and diffusion models, and others misconstruing or discounting any AI class that isn’t LLM or diffusion related.
I never like to say technology is inevitable, as the inevitability argument is one of the best marketing tools major companies have to justify their poor ethics and business models (see: the gig economy founders, the “Momentum” mindset). It’s clear, though, that there is quite a paradigm shift occuring.
The paradigm shift toward stupid monthly paying users?
Removed by mod
Neither I, nor anyone, can “protect” it or slow it down. You either find a way to work with what’s happening or spiral into greater and greater impotent rage. Better accept this now than slowly go mad no?
People said the metaverse was inevitable. Bitcoin was at one time inevitable.
Frankly, I think more impotent rage is needed.
It’s because most of it is utter dross, that’s why.
Despite their size, steam engines do not typically disrupt my workflow.
Sure, but I expect they disrupted the workflow of folks in 1804…
The whole reason that the steam engine took off was because they did the opposite. It’s the same reason that you don’t hear people complaining about the AI used to spot cancer or find stars. They changed workflow, but they didn’t negatively disrupt it. They made it easier to do more.
People hate AI the same way that they hate touch screens in cars. They actively make things more difficult. Not only are car manufacturers being required by law to bring back physical controls for things like the A/C because the lack of a physical knob or dial means that you have to take your eyes off the road to change something on a screen, the last time I was buying a car I was talking to the guy at the dealership about how I was limiting the model years I wanted to look at to those before the 16+ inch screens became common, and he said that the vast majority of people coming in had similar sentiments - the screens are just generally unpopular, especially because of how big they’ve become. They’re unwieldy, unintuitive, and require too much concentration to use when actually driving.
Google’s AI has been found to be wrong 60% of the time - even frequently making up “facts” that directly contradict the works that it cites as sources. They hate that trying to find an accurate picture of a penguin or whatever has become so difficult because image search tools are filled with AI generated images that range from slightly off to completely inaccurate. They hate that refrigerators now come with an AI assistant in them. Something like 80% of users in a study either actively disliked the AI features on their phones or said they find them useless.
The current AI trend is a Dutch Tulip bubble, or more accurately, a solution to the problem of people being paid that investors and c suites want crammed into everything in order to justify the money spent.
It’s like watching people get angry at the first steam engines that appeared.
It is nothing of the sort. Steam engines served mostly useful purposes. AI mostly does not (at least not in an open world environment, it has excellent purposes in closed environments like medicine and science). The fact that it is indeed unstoppable does not make the outrage of its infestation of everything on the internet less, quite contrary.
I genuinely worry about their mental health over the next few years
I guess someone with their head in the sand, their fingers in their ears and screaming at the top of their lungs like you, will have an excellent mental health.
Everyone loved steam engines huh? Do you even history? - Chugging Through Fears & Terror: The Steam Train Phobia of the 19th Century 🚂💨
It’s obviously AI because they all have the same face.
deleted by creator
Or just accept it as another form of humor and laugh at it if you find it funny.
I really don’t care about AI usage when its memes and shitposts.
deleted by creator
are ai jokes like reverse captchas
I’ve seen ai make jokes that were clever, original, and context aware. Very interesting. There’s a theory of mind (or several - I dunno - I do my own philosophizing) that says that valence and emotions in general stem from the social need. My personal theory is that the world, including inanimate objects, can be nice or mean to you from a human perspective. Anyways, what is language, if not an exchange of conveying social needs? I don’t see llm’s as some blank jigsaw puzzle of words, but a derivation and a case study. Notice: I believe it’s a potentially valuable tool for very particular studies, not some magic catch-all for reasoning that can do anything worth a shit. More akin to a sociopath manipulating you.
I laugh because they are ai generated,not because they are funny (most of the time, thry are not)
