trolling is ai art

Nov 14, 2025 2:10 AM

daychilde

Views

34310

Likes

1177

Dislikes

76

I actually use some AI art in places where it doesn't matter. Like I have Telegram groups for friends and family, and I get AI to make me cute little badges with glowy text. That's a perfect use of AI. They're not all quite consistent, but close enough, and it looks nice.

Do I use AI on my websites? Not for my clients, hell no. On most of my personal sites, nah. I did use a Ghibli-style filter on some of my photography for one site, and I like it, but I can understand if others hate it.

I'm just saying - I think there's a place for it, but that place is relatively rare. And certainly not in any professional use - except to generate placeholders with the clear understanding that they MUST be replaced and are JUST placeholders.

EDIT: Some people apparently have reading comprehension problems and don't understand: "Thing is generally bad, but here are a few exceptions I think are alright" and go all "YOU SUPPORT THE THING! YOU SUCK THING'S DICK!!!! OMG YOU ARE TEH EVIL AND SUPPORT THE THING!!!!!1!!1!!1111oneone11eleventy!!1111" and to THOSE people I say please learn how language fucking works.

'canned dumpster juice, brought to you by the finest restaurants', I feel an idea brewing

8 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Fucking fuck I'm glad I work a real physical job.

8 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Here in Canada, the federal budget was announced and part of that budget was that 4000 federal positions were going to be replaced by AI. Microsoft replaced 15,000 people this year with AI. These are just drops in the bucket that are coming our way. AI is going to cause a massive poverty gap and kill entire industries. What are we gaining? Environmental disasters, art and literary theft, and massive unemployment.

8 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

“…you probably just hate art and expression”, who’s expression, exactly?

8 months ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

I will say it every time, until the AI can choose to make art of its own free will instead of being told, it's not real creativity or expression

8 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I think A.I. is a symptom of the disease that permeates the brains of the elite. It certainly underscores the notion that without empathy and sympathy, no matter how smelt or successful you are you are just a smart greedy monkey.

8 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

1 in 20 people have any idea how AI works. CoPilot told me.

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It never "looks nice." It looks trashy. :/

8 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Cover letters for job postings is a fair use of generative AI.

8 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

AI art is not human art.

8 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

ai consumes so much energy for doing what it does.. it should be banned for free use. Make ppl pay for any use. And make the money go to climate change

8 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

I like that here in germany a court has ruled that the company behind chat gpt has to pay for the music they teach the AIs on at least somthing

8 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No computer can ever draw my art better than I can.

8 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

It can once it steals all of your art and replicates it for someone who just typed in a prompt to replicate your art style. That's literally what AI does.

8 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

Only I can determine the quality of my own work, not the computer. All the computer can do is create plagiarized distortions.

8 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Based. Slop is one thing, but a lot of it is garbage. It says and signifies almost nothing

8 months ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 2

It's the most anti-human thing I could ever imagine

8 months ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

Not to mention the people losing, giving up their voice to AI expediency

8 months ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

Seriously, if you can't think critically or creatively you're just a fucking drone, literally turning into the people in Wall-E

8 months ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

People who hate AI are the same people who hated cell phones when they first came out. Or computers. Or books. Or the written word. The future is now old man

8 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I don't hate AI. I hate the machine behind it that oversells its capabilities.

8 months ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

As an artist, that guy can suck a whole dick.

8 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

there is no place for it. stop normalizing AI garbage.

8 months ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

> "If you hate AI you probably just hate art and expression."
Computers & algorithms can generate some neat stuff, but it's not "art & expression."
Appreciating art is appreciating the individual human mind & craftsmanship that went into its expression.

8 months ago | Likes 33 Dislikes 1

Duchamp put a urinal on its side and signed it. I actually saw Fountain in person only hours ago. Was I appreciating Duchamp’s work, or was it just there to take the piss? ;)

(To be clear: *a lot* of “AI art” isn’t art, but most who try to categorically invalidate it as art end up indirectly slagging Duchamp.)

8 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

Fountain -- among his other "readymade" pieces -- is Duchamp flipping the bird to the pretentiousness of the "adoration of art." The irony being that Fountain became to be considered one of the most influential pieces of art ever made with many of the very people it was criticising heaping praise on it and analysing it for decades...

8 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

In a high school art class, I did this with a ketchup bottle and defended it with this information. Got the A on the project.

8 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It eats water and kills the environment. Stop using AI.

8 months ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

I don't like this comparison because dumpster juice is the necessary end result of talented working artists using the tools of their craft. This is more like someone made a machine to specifically churn out dumpster juice to replace those artists.

8 months ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

AI is a tool, no more, no less. It augments the talents of the person using it. If you have no artistic talent then you'll produce AI slop. The quality levels go up from there. It is and never will be a wholesale replacement for a talented artist. We went through this whole song and dance when Photoshop first hit mainstream. Professional artists will have no choice to use AI in some fashion in order to stay competitive with their other contemporaries who do use it.

8 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

*not

8 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

lmao. Virtue signaling while using AI... this is imgur in a nutshell:

Everyone is doing wrong except me, I do the same things I hate other people do, but when I do it/ people I care do it/ the celebrity I worship does it, everything is fine, we do it in an ethical way.

8 months ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 4

I don't have a problem with a tool such as LLMs in and of itself. Train it on paid data, free data, abandoned data and we're golden, generate images/movies/texts till kingdom come.

But grabbing copyrighted materials, restricted creations, whole libraries worth of 'owned' content - that has to stop.

Simple, really. It's not the tool that's problematic. It's the material it is used with, that is.

8 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It's just another tool but our corporate overlords want to inject it into every part of our lives

8 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

AI increasing all of our electric bills

8 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

What a perfect analogy

8 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I noticed today that Microsoft added copilot to Notepad. Who adds AI to notepad!? Notepad is supposed to be easy and simple and not bloated with stuff! Fuck AI and fuck Microsoft.

8 months ago | Likes 195 Dislikes 2

Get CrimsonEdit or Notepad++

Both have excellent markup for pretty much every programming language.

8 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

See, they all dumped hundreds of billions into AI but with no idea how to actually earn money from it, so they push that crap into *everything* now.

8 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Ty LibreWriter. It’s a bit more involved since it’s more of a competitor to Word than Notepad, but it’s open-source.

8 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

8 months ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 0

From 2010. And it'd been a thing for a decade even before that. And it's only gotten worse.

8 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

And good luck removing it. I can't get rid of the Copilot icon in my work Outlook.

8 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I uninstall it after each update, but it keeps getting put back in with each successive update.

8 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Goodness knows I tried too. Can't escape the bloody thing it's like a virus

8 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I did notice that a week or two ago and laughed. like Jesus Christ, they cant bear the thought of anything NOT having some half baked AI shoved up its ass.

8 months ago | Likes 51 Dislikes 0

......must...justify.......capex....... *dies*

8 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Everytime you make a text file in notepad it should be automatically turned into a NFT.

8 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Is it really worth writing a text file if it isnt on the Blockchain?

8 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Look closer. One of the options is "make longer". They have an option to use GenAI to rewrite something you wrote in Notepad to be longer than it is.

This is what we're melting the planet for.

8 months ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 0

Jesus H. Fiddlesticks. I'm already verbose as shit, and regularly run over every word length I'm proscribed. I need something to make my blathering 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘳, not longer!

8 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I am sure this is the invention of a man.

8 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

8 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm sticking with Windows 10 until the viruses pry it from my cold, dead, fingers.

Then I'm wiping and reinstalling windows 10 until the next set of viruses pry it from my colder, deader, fingerers.

And then I'm wiping and reinstalling Windows 10 and some better AV software, until yet more viruses pry it from my coldest, deadest, fingerests. Then it's onto Linux.

8 months ago | Likes 35 Dislikes 0

Ubuntu my dude. It's fucking awesome these days. Mint if you really desire the Windows experience.

8 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You're probably better off switching to SteamOS when that comes out.

8 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

That too, yeah.

8 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Why don't you just skip to Linux?

8 months ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

8 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

'cause it'll be better and easier to switch to in 3 years and 3 days(minus about a month), which when I'll have just given up on Win 10 after the third reinstall for the third day in a row after the extended-support window closes on Win10

8 months ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

I wouldn't count in it

8 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You think Linux won't be easier to use after 3 years of Microsoft trying to forcefeed fucking ads, AI, and all the spyware ever conceived, into absolutely fucking everything?

I laugh!

8 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Honestly you'll be fine, im still running win 7 on one of my laptops as well as pop os. 7 has been unsupported forever but aslong as pay attentionntonwhat you're clicking on, run an ad blocker and use common sense you should be ok. Mbam and avast still work for win 7 so theres some protection. I wouldnt be torrenting on it though.

8 months ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Problem with such an old OS is gaming. 7 doesn't support the latest frameworks.

8 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Honestly i have had few issue with games up to 2019 - 2021 ish. I can still run bl3 at absolute max. Mynnew issue is steam no longer works on it. So i can only launch games from gog

8 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

there is no ethical use of ai... it's always stealing and it's always more environmentally destructive than not using it. Just stop using it

8 months ago | Likes 347 Dislikes 51

US courts have consistently ruled it's not thief, so it's not.

8 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 19

Adobe's AI is exclusively trained using their stock image library which creators were given the opportunity to opt out of. It is the only model I know of which is created in a way to ensure it is copyright safe so they and their customers can't be sued for using it.

8 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 5

That anyone could possibly be sued for using CGI, regardless of the underlying algorithm, in any case except where the output is both nearly identical to an existing work protected by copyright and can be proven to have generated revenue that would have otherwise gone to the copyright holder is prima facia unconstitutional. Even then, if the assertion of copyright retards the progress of science or the useful arts, that grant of temporary monopoly is unconstitutional and invalid.

8 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

That's not true at all though, and having this black and white stance prevents you from being listened to by people who are for AI.

There are VERY good and legitimate uses for AI, primary one being medical purposes.

8 months ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 3

You mean generative AI. There are plenty of ethical uses of AI that detects patterns humans would miss.

8 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yea, so get rid of the problems: capitalism and intellectual property,(which is perpendicular to how science art creativity works, namely collectively, freely exchanging the ideas,). Any lost income due to that can be taken from the weapon industry/oil/agriculture or the billionaire class.

Also LLMs in particular. To me protein folding simulation ai can be an ethical usecase

8 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Patents work: an invention must be novel as determined by skilled experts, it must be useful; the patent must teach the best known use of the invention, that teaching made public; the patent grants a monopoly on profit for 20 years, compensation for violation is limited to civil damages, treble for willful. Copyright, derived from the same clause, has been so distorted by corporate scum that if you record a fart you get a monopoly for life+70 years with harsher criminal penalties than murder.

8 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There is one ethical usage of AI.

It's called the LOIC-for-AI. Distributed automated usage of mass AI services. Hits all of them with semi-random prompts. Everyone running it participates.

Yeah, AI is environmentally destructive. It also costs more than they make from it. So, destroy them fiscally, together.

8 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 8

Do you mean public-use LLMs? Because there are many ethical uses of AI that are opening new fields of science and technology.

8 months ago | Likes 47 Dislikes 3

This is the problem with "AI" becoming a catch-all term for LLMs and other generative algorithms as well as proper, purpose-trained AI models like AlphaFold.

8 months ago | Likes 30 Dislikes 1

It's so frustrating that companies have slapped the AI moniker on everything from fancy intellisense in IDEs, to Machine Learning, LLMs and anything remotely interesting in the last 3 or 4 years.

8 months ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

My mind always goes back to the Tefal rice cooker, that proudly proclaims it's using "AI Rice Cooking Technology." What the fuck does that even mean? How is a system using what I assume is a bunch of sensors to measure shit like temps and moisture levels to adjust cooking time and temperature "AI?" IT'S A FUCKING RICE COOKER.

8 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Genius! I'm with you - I hate how everything with an algorithmic function is now AI. Like, no - taking a set of known variables and calculating an output is not intelligence, artificial or fucking otherwise. An AI rice cooker would know I've just put 2lbs of ribeye in it and react accordingly 😂

8 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It is never "stealing," that's simply parroting the disingenuous nonsense disney and Gershwin lawyers made up out of their shitty corporate asses to colonize and gatekeep the public domain. If you're not a corporate shill or bootlicker, there is no such thing as imaginary property.

8 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 5

I mean if you want to throw together random art pieces for my high fantasy game all day on Saturdays I'm happy to stop using Bing for quick images.

8 months ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 5

Sometimes we need a little slop when all you really need is slop. It makes the moments when you use the real stuff only better.
I'm in charge of the background music at our TTRPG table. Most of the time nobody pays attention to the music and it's just there for flavor. If I can't find something for a certain occasion, then I generate some ambient slop.
Leaves all the more good real music for when it counts. At the good scenes, during important battles. That is where I use real music.

8 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

Plus; the more you use it the more you train it

8 months ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 4

My friend needed a photo of himself for an ID and the country it's from said he had to have shorter hair and no nose ring. His nose ring doesn't come out and he used AI to change his photo. I dont see an issue with that.

8 months ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 6

You can tell people not to use cell phones, but you're putting them at a disadvantage to people who are using the currently available technology. Everyone who is using cell phones is promoting slavery and environmental degradation, and everyone who refuses to use one is unlikely to get a callback when they're looking for work.

8 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 5

Incorrect. I hate AI art generation but uses in STEM are fantastic and should not be shut down. If you're going to hate something, hate it from an informed perspective.

8 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

I'm using AI (newest claude) to advance computer graphics research with shaders. AI was useless for that topic for a long time, but now it speeds up my work 25% to 50%

8 months ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 7

It seems all you think of is ChatGPT and the like. Running offline models on my PC, trained on my personal stuff, certainly ain't stealing

8 months ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 7

This is one of the things I have no problems using AI for. If it is your stuff being used to train and just runs on YOUR silicon, then go right ahead, no problem with it.

8 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Of course there is and of course its not and yeah it most likely is for anything we can already do ourselves. No matter our opinions on the subject though, AI is not going to go away, people are not going to stop using it and there will be a lot of collateral damage with livelihoods being sacrificed at the altar of productivity. As has always been the case with development of new tech.

8 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Generative AI, yes, 100% agreed. LLMs do have a use in medicine and physics, though. Take sequencing amino acids for example.

8 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

We've been trying to sequence them for as long as we've had the capability, like 60 years by now or something. We've fully coded 40 or so.

8 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

When an LLM was trained how to do it, it coded like another 500 in a couple months. For tasks that are mindnumbingly boring...

8 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

As well as number intensive like that kind of biology, LLM's work great. For vomiting up dogshit art? Nah, burn that shit in a firebombing.

8 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

AI isn't environmentally destructive though. Video gaming uses easy more energy for example. AI is a rounding error in the USA. When you make the environment argument, you discredit the good arguments like that it is going to cause mass starvation via unemployment and that it's being used to replace art creation which is one of the only good things about being alive

8 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 12

Currently. But if you look at the "per unit" cost of a single prompt and then expect usage to increase a few thousand fold in the next ten years, then the math will be doing you and not the other way around.

8 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Depends on the AI.

The power usage used in a single click to generate an 8 second video using AI consumes 13 times the amount of power used compared to streaming netflix for 1 hour.

A song generation click? 3 times the energy usage of 1 hr of streaming

Constant chatgpt queries for 1 hour? 1.5 times the energy use of 1 hour streaming.

Source below

https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-carbon-footprint-of-streaming-video-fact-checking-the-headlines

To your point tho, it's getting more (1/2)

8 months ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

efficient as time goes on. Attacking it solely based off of "environment impact" isn't an effective argument since it's carbon footprint may soon be a non-issue in the near future.

There are better criticisms to focus on than environmental impact. Environmental impact is a solvable issue and one that is being worked on. The other dangers...not as easily solved. (2/2)

8 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I am very concerned about the political consequences of any-to-any synthetic visual/acoustic fabrication. We have a hard enough time understanding that memory should be treated as confabulation; we have just started to accept recorded data as proof, something that is still solidifying after more than a century and in a mere decade synthetic imagery generation went specialist to universal. We have lost objective truth and the consequences may be catastrophic.

8 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Agreed. I've been predicting for over a year now that the world will soon going be revisiting a time (were almost there already) when one can ONLY truly believe things you see and hear with your own eyes and ears IN-PERSON....a truly bizarre phenomenon to be regressing back to.

8 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

How can you say it's not an effective argument? These data centers are causing massive ecological and environmental damage RIGHT NOW to LIVING PEOPLE. When, praytell, will the energy and water costs to run these data centers drop by orders of magnitude? Not quickly enough, that's for damn sure, and I would guess not at all. I work for a company that sells chillers and cooling towers for data centers; they don't intend to use substantially less energy any time soon.

8 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Plus, we should not be willing to accept irresponsible use of any technology; make it viable before deploying it. This is why we have Environmental Impact Studies required before industries just start constructing willy-nilly and why we need well-funded oversight agencies to ensure they get done and punish companies who try to circumvent them.

8 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Didn't say it wasn't a problem. Just not the problem we should be focused on since the major players are already working towards net-zero water consumption. Not because it's the right thing to do but because it's in their best financial interests. It's a problem that is being addressed and will be a non-issue in future.

But the displacement of half the earth's workforce, however? No one seems to be working on that oncoming problem and believe me a lot more people will be hurt by that scenario.

8 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm for using it in the sense that we can train a barcode scanner to detect cancer cells. Never as a replacement for any human endeavor of creativity in any capacity.

8 months ago | Likes 100 Dislikes 5

You know what would be a good use of AI? traffic lights. You know why they'll never ha e AI do something like that? Because it's not profitable at all.

But, no AI will ever be profitable, so it could at least be useful.

8 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

Are you aware that London, Brisbane and multiple other cities have implemented this successfully?

8 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I think AI *can* be used someday, but not how we're using it. My thought process is that eventually the sum of human knowledge is going to reach a point where it's impossible for someone to learn everything they need to to reach the cutting edge of a given field. AI could help people learn. But it's nowhere near that point on either front yet.

8 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

yeah... you don't get one without other and guess which one is more profitable?

8 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 19

You can have one without the other through regulation and by writing legislation. Intellectual property rights are a great place to start. You already can't copyright artificially generated works. The very notion that it has no one creator binds it from copyright law.

8 months ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 1

It would help if we had better accepted terminology for all this. What you’re describing I’d call ML rather than AI.

8 months ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

It's both. AI is the end algorithm, ML is how we train the algorithm.

8 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

Disagree in the use, but agree in principle.

The idea should be that we train ai to detect cancer until it's really damn accurate, then find out why it's accurate.

Like the lady who could smell Alzheimer's(I think) patients before they were diagnosed. They figured out she picked up on some chemical in their skin oil (sebum?) and now they can develop a test for it.

AI should be the same.

8 months ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 17

Based

8 months ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

You've confused ChatGPT for AI.

We have literally taken systems that scan food and turned them into systems that detect cancer with better than human accurate.

But they don't work like an image-diffusion model, nor a large-language model. Different AI entirely. So no, you should agree in use, and update your knowledge of what actually qualifies as AI vs generators.

8 months ago | Likes 46 Dislikes 3

The problem with AI algorithms (especially genAI) is that the process evolves to such a level of complexity that it becomes impossible to figure out how it actually works. Like, in the situation where an algorithm becomes really good at detecting cancer, it might be that we'll never figure out what it is that it's actually basing the results on, preventing us from using it to develop a detection system that doesn't rely on some AI black box.

8 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 4

Not really. If you're using an LLM, sure, but there's a lot of different methods available to be used, with varying degrees of intelligibility. Supervised learning systems (such as what most medical screening software would be) tend to be on the easier end of things because their training dataset is necessarily smaller

8 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Yeah, it depends on the type of algorithm, the type of data being used and how it's all coming together. I won't pretend to understand the intricacies of the systems, but as the average joe these days generally means LLMs/genAI when they say "AI" -- much to my chagrin -- my criticism is primarily aimed at that premise.

8 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

I think we under estimate ourselves here. We have people making gameboy games in the original way today. VLC reverse engineered the Google Cast protocol so that they wouldn't be beholden to Google. People hack the shit out of stuff because they can.

Until someone says "here's the entirety of the Ai inclusive of a sample set of data it was trained on" and let's the public go hog wild on it, I don't think we should assume "it's abstract and weird" and not try.

Its hard, but not impossible.

8 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 9

Not trying to be a dick here, but reverse engineering Google Cast, or coding in Assembly or C isn't really anything jaw-dropping. Those are systems designed to be human-readable. You can't really reverse engineer or hack something like an LLM model, because it gets so stupidly complex so quickly. Even the simplest of queries result in thousands of "decisions" being made by the algorithm. There is no "thread to pull on" really to even begin figuring out how it's doing its thing.

8 months ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

There is a difference between RevEng on a piece of software, and RevEng on an output that a piece of software created. There's a level of remove that is similar to trying to understand how a brain works based on fingerprints. Black box / Chinese room examples are used to describe these models for a reason- it's not because nobody is trying, it's that the answer is hard for humans to understand. Again, the answer is literally something people _won't_ think about, so we make a machine that does.

8 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2