this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2026
542 points (95.5% liked)
memes
22472 readers
3785 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're railing against a strawman here. It's an exaggeration to imply that people type literally one sentence in and produce art yes, but that's not the complaint. The issue people here have is that AI "artists" take the part that requires actual skill and scoop it out, then fill the void back in with a gloopy beige paste. Then, like you're doing here, they demand to be taken seriously and/or at least have their time respected because of all the externalities, like the time spent washing the scoop or choosing the exact right consistentcy of gloop to fill it with.
Generating five minutes worth of sexy women shooting orcs that explode into papercut gore confetti takes a lot of time. Stitching those together into a 3 minute video takes a lot of time. None of that is time that I give a shit you spent doing - it's like buying out a vending machine, putting it all on fancy plates and demanding I call you a chef. Sure the skittles look kinda pretty, but all the careful arrangement in the world won't make them taste better.
Two things.
You don't know what a straw man is. It is the single most misused logical fallacy in existence.
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.
1.) ...Do you often encounter people who imply you're having sex with formal logical fallacies? Or just maybe could I have been using the term colloquially.
2.) Well yes. If you read the next paragraph in your comment, you'll see an excellent example of someone attempting to neg another user into watching a bunch of fucking awful slop content on youtube by implying they aren't being fair to people who make "phenomenal" videos.
You're a perfect example of the exact kind of person I was talking about. You're insisting, again, that the joke is no longer relevant because we should be respecting the time these people put in to using AI to produce art. Thank you! I couldn't have made my point nearly as well without your help.
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.
Housekeeping:
It's... it's a double entendre. I was implying you are both arguing against a figurative strawman (which you are) and fucking a literal man made from straw. I'm not exactly writing Finnegans Wank here, but just in case you need them, the relevant definitions are below:
Phew, now that that's out of the way, lets address the rest of this!
First:
Your entire argument is posited on a strawman. Don't believe me? Here:
Now, I was willing to extend an assumption of hyperbolic exaggeration in order to illustrate your point - but apparently that's a courtesy I shouldn't take for granted. So in the spirit of illustrating my point, do you have any evidence that the literal idea 'you can type a single sentence into grok and get a full movie out' is at all a widespread misunderstanding of the technology?
... No? You were clearly being hyperbolic? Fancy that, who could have known (oh wait, me, I knew).
I explicitly stated that I knew it wasn't a literal example but that you were attempting to highlight a concept, then clarified that the conceptual argument you were presenting as being representative of the attitudes of the anti-AI crowd didn't reflect the actual attitudes of the group. That was why I said you were arguing with a strawman - your justification for why the joke is tired is not why people object to AI, nor is it a widespread misunderstanding that AI workflows still involve human effort (feel free to try and prove it is, though!). We can bin "colloquially", your argument is "definitionally" a strawman.
Second:
Please show on the mysteriously sticky straw-stuffed doll where I said that there were literally people demanding respect for their 3 minute slopfests (spoiler you can't, I didn't). You were the one that requested I demonstrate that was literally true, and now you're trying to, what, claim that because I didn't do that, I can't defend my argument? I uh... no. That's silly. You can't just demand people do something unrelated and then dismiss what they actually said when they don't do that.
Third:
Actually, hang on, what strawman do you think I made? My argument has been consistent throughout this. Are you just trying to gaslight in a strawman? That seems like a bad idea - straw is flammable! We could all die!
Honestly it seems like you are, because I have no earthly idea where you got the idea that I'm simply reluctant to "admit AI content is good" - no, I have seen no good outright AI content. As a tool it can be situationally useful, as the primary creative tool it is hilariously garbage.
Fourth:
So! It is okay for our subjective tastes to differ, But! I must be basing my subjective opinion (that those channels you linked are the definition of ugly, vapid, no-effort slipitty slop) on the fact I just don't like AI, instead of an appreciation for nuance and creativity and that I've seen more inspired ideas on the walls of a kindergarten than in those channels you're so eager to hold up.
Yeah, sure, how magnanimous of you. Great point.
Fifth:
"It's over anakin, I've already drawn you as the soyjak!"
Buddy just go back to reddit, you'll fit in way better with the community there if this is the level of BS you're trying to pass off.
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.
Ohhh fine, if you want a quote-heavy wall of text, you can have one. As a treat.
But first a tiny aside (just one to save screen space for anyone scrolling the thread):
Boop!
When you asserted that your position really is that people hate AI because of (the substantive argument - that this is a true assertion because [your evidence]) the false impression held by the group that there is no human labor or skill-based human input utilized in producing finished works with AI components, you were creating a strawman. You substituted that excessively simplistic argument for the real one, which has been explained several times. That Is the strawman I've been referencing.
What a suspiciously convenient and yet thus far unfounded assertion. Strangely, you have yet to hilight a strawman I've put forward - possibly because you are projecting your own lack of familiarity with the term, more likely because I haven't made one. Who's to tell? (me, I'm the one who tells).
Mm...hmm.
Yup.
Don't think I made that claim anywhere...
There was no conversation before this happened, so it can't have degraded vs. what came before...
"Behold, a (straw) man!"
Alright, y'know what? I'm calling this one out. Put up or shut up time, budski; lets see a few of these "objective measures of quality." Even stupidly simple measures like "It's not static" "shapes are identifiable as distinct objects" and "did not induce vomiting" are all subjective so... yeah, lets go. Come on. Chop chop. Example time.
... Self respect, probably. This redditor shit, like asserting your intellectual superiority, or claiming their argument is a strawman, or (one you seem to fall back on constantly) "claiming that the other person doesn't even understand their own argument so clearly how could they have a point"? That just doesn't fly here. You should know that by now. You've been trying that same tired shtick for at least days and it hasn't once worked. Honestly, has it ever worked for you on lemmy?
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.
Nebraska: a rant.
Nebraska? Who the fuck has a concept of the size of Nebraska? I haven't thought about Nebraska in years. I might not have ever thought about Nebraska. I'm not even positive Nebraska is a state and not just one of the capital cities in some podunk flyover shithole nobody has ever given a fuck about. ThE sIzE oF nEbRaSka I mean seriously, come the fuck on with this shit.
I am genuinely saddened to learn this, this has been a rollicking good time. We've been doing voices. Full disclosure, they're very funny. Darn this is a loss. That other comment you deleted barely had anything fun in it at all, too. Damn shame.
... Though, I suppose it does track that you still want credit for all the effort you put in but that resulted in no product.
~~Tried to use it against you? "Tried"?? Buddy I am the goddamn Harlem Globetrotters of dunking on your ass over this. I've succeeded at using this against you so hard I'm writing a book called "How I used it against them: The Strawman Story"~~
Sigh. Okay, I'll be polite. Sorry, long day.
Look, insisting I don't know what I'm talking about is a losing strategy. I know I know what I'm talking about, because I talk about stuff a lot and my momma says I'm real good at it, and my momma ain't no liar. And I'm well aware of the meanings behind the terms I've been using. Yes, what you did initially is absolutely a straw man - I'm going to just borrow the damn formula from wikipedia and fill in the blanks mad-libs style:
You're doing a goddamned triple-axel backflipping strawman. Taylor Swift is singing a ballad about that time she broke up with a guy because he was a man filled with straw and he cheated on her with you. The entire inter-collegiate "Its A Strawman" marching band strikes up their classic all-tuba rendition of "enter the gladiators". It smells of hot buttered popcorn, freshly mown grass and the lingering scent of the straw bale you're sitting on. You look at your sweetheart and feel the moment is perfect. Carefully you reach up and brush their straw-blond hair out of their face. The music swells and, as you lean in for that first momentus kiss, fireworks erupt in the night sky, blooming ephemeral flowers the size of a neighborhood, each one hurling shimmering petals of flame down towards you, their flight coloring the scene the gentle golden-yellow of a summer strawman.
(It's a callback to when I implied you banged a strawman earlier. Subtle, I know. God damn I'm funny.)
"Golly gee batman, that's really convenient how they said could provide proof then said they didn't have to! Man. You know, it's so convenient it's almost like..."
"Great scott Boy Wonder, you're right! The piddler never had any proof all along! It was all a bluff! Quickly, to the Flatmobile!"
-muffled sounds of gorilla violence-
Anyways. Honestly, I'm still waiting on that example of a strawman I was using in an argument. Genuinely. I'm pretty sure I didn't use one, but I might have skirted too close dickarus-style at one point with an appeal to absurdity. I think I dodged it by being explicit about what I was doing, but I'm curious to hear your opinion there.
Also those Objective Categories of Quality, really want to hear more about those. That'll be fun.
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.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN AND EVERYTHING ELSE BETWIXT, BETWEEN, BELOW AND BELOVED, BACK FOR A REPEAT ENCORE PERFORMANCE AND HERE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION "WHAT IS THE SOUND OF ONE HAND CLAPPING BACK", THE ONE, THE ONLY:
MECHOMAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!
-muffled sounds of gorilla cheering-
"My word, what an incredibly vast size - and you say they fight dragons there? And the streets are paved with DDR5?? Oh it sounds a loverly place, this 'Nee-bra-skah'! How are more people not talking of these wonders???" Seriously, how did you think this was going to go - I open this up, see you know Exactly How Big Nebraska Is and just faint dead at the realization I'll never defeat you and your monstrously huge stack of 3rd grade US geography flash cards? For fucks... you're already trying to throw 'Confirmation Bias' out there like a rhetorical pokemon, and now you're following that up with the devastating one-two combination punch of "Fascinating Nebraska Facts"??? Oh be still my cold-feeling legs, Mecho's really got us THIS TIME!
You might genuinely be the first person who's ever cared enough about nebraska to look up how big it is - hell even nebraska doesn't care about nebraska. But here's some more nebraska facts you can use:
Step it up dude, this is laaaaaaaaame.
Hmm. You know, performatively signaling your disinterest by implying my comment is so beneath you that you didn't even read it was lame and transparent when all those other people did that to your first comment, and it's lame and transparent here too, and it will continue to be lame and transparent when you try it again. Nobody ever even means it - they'll claim they did, but humans are just too curious to resist the tantalizing prospect of finding out what's in the box!
But that said, the second half here:
No you're dead on with this, it really isn't worth worrying your pretty little head by trying to grasp the subtle nuances of my (checks notes) ... elaborate dick jokes. Honestly, I had to stop writing to your level a while ago because I ate all my crayons. All that excess verbiage and imagery you want me to believe you didn't read? All that purple prose? Overworking it to where there's far more gilding than lily? That's to amuse myself (well, and the audience). I've gotta do something to keep myself from getting bored here since you're clearly not up to the task. I mean, god, you're trying to dunk on me with Nebraska facts. Nebraska. Facts. Son you don't just "not have game", your game has been stolen and you're halfway through filing a police report about the group of raccoons that just beat you up and ran off with your limited edition Big Bang Theory™ Monopoly set.
Nebraska.
Facts.
C'mon son.
Anyways, because I know you don't like too much writing, here's a selection of quick little rapid-fire responses for you:
^-mechoman444^
Lmfao one sentence. One sentence. You couldn't keep up the act until the next paragraph even. For nebraska's sake man, what are you doing?
Um...
-muffled sounds of gorilla dunking-
Uh....
lmfao - we now go live to literally the second sentence I said to you:
Look, there's only two realistic options here. The first one is that you're genuinely too dumb to be able to understand the wikipedia definition of straw man (just in case, here's the simple english version) - and I think we can both agree that I'm right and you're clearly not so painfully, stratospherically dumb as for that to be the case.
So that leaves us only with the second option (which is, lets be honest, pretty transparently the correct one):
You've long since realized I do know exactly what I'm talking about, but since defending your argument is out of reach, you've shifted focus to trying to "win" (by the internet's terms, "not show any weakness or admit any fault, and have the other person give up first") the interaction. So now you're repeating "Oh lel, U're so wrong you don't even know how wrong you are! I can't behlieave ur sthil so wr0ngz0rs abt Strawmen kek, topkek" like an incantation. You know that when I do it to you it produces a strong emotional reaction, evoking impotent rage and a desperate need to avoid having to admit to yourself that you've been outclassed, and you're assuming that when you do it back, it'll have the same effect.
But like... you're just not any good at this?
You act like you're bringing heat to the kitchen, but you seem blissfully unaware that this is a blast furnace, and you didn't remember to put on your asbestos underpants today. You can stand there with a skillet and talk about cooking the perfect crispy Narwhal Bacon, but everyone else can clearly see the skillet is melting, the bacon is charcoal and your pants have just caught on fire.
Look just... for a moment, I'll stop pretending we're not on the same page here.
The simple fact is that I'm so far out of your league we're not even playing the same sport. Your goal here is to performatively demonstrate how unaffected by what you think are attempts to compete with you - to show no weakness, know no fear, stand as his bulwark against the darkness, yadda yadda. You think that this must be frustrating me, and that by causing me frustration you can claim a victory. But dude, we don't share the same goal! I don't even know if I have a goal beyond "have fun and be yourself :) ". This isn't about 'winning' for me - no, this is fun. I get excited when people reply like this. I get my partner to read these replies because they also think this is fun. I sincerely hope you never decide you've lost, so you don't stop coming back with this stuff. My trophy shelf is about to collapse under the weight of all the participation trophies alone, I just don't see a need to add anything else to that precipitously teetering mountain of victories.
This isn't a competition.
This isn't some debate where I gnash my teeth while figuring out my next move in our grand dialectic chess match.
This is what I do to relax when a question at work is just too tedious-but-challenging and I need a break to do something fun. This is what I do in bed at night with my partner, reading out your comments to each other in silly voices before we go to sleep.
You're strutting around, acting like you're some noble champion locked in a tremendously one-sided battle of wits with a plebeian challenger, blinded by ego to your undeniable might, when you're somehow blissfully unaware that bitch, you're my candy-crush.
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.
AAAAHHahahahahaa, CALLED IT!
Oh man also, accusing someone in the same breath of baselessly rejecting AI because of their biases and using chatGPT to write their responses? Bitch if being this funny was as easy as typing a single sentence into ChatGPT, why the hell are you so lame?
Look, I don't know what else I can say to convince you that I'm not aloof or above anything (I mean, why do you think I wear so many goth boots? Hint, it's not just because they're cute as hell - those 6" platforms are the only way I can get to the top shelf!). I know you're just saying that because it's a canned phrase and you're about as creative as a very uncreative thing, but like come on, think before you speak. You're embarrassing yourself when you fall back on tired old tropes like that. Cut loose! Live a little! Honestly, I'm right down here in the mud, and I'm confused as hell why you're not getting in here with me! Come on, you're the head of the nebraska tourism board - you're trying to tell me you've never dabbled in a bit of mud wrestling??