I appreciate the reference. I do always want to credit the original artist.

Either I have a headache or some form of red/green blindness I wasn’t previously aware of.

There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who have to ask how much garlic to put in the recipe and those who know you measure that shit with your heart.

That edit is on point. Love me some potato salad.

Judging by the responses, I feel I should convey I relate to the professor and absurdity is that the student would ask such dumb off-topic question.

As for the question itself, people like what they like, they don’t need to justify themselves. Which is what makes question dumb.

Wasn’t mine. Moldy Monday and all.

I feel like both rules suffer from the same problem of spectrum. We can all point to a bad moldy/ai post and point to a good moldy/ai post. The issue is going to be those ones in the grey space between. It’s like the threshold test for obscenity.

“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.” -Justice Potter Stewart

I agree ai generation can be exploitative, but I don’t believe it’s only exploitative. I’m sure there are fine artists out there who can use it responsibly to make genuine art. I think it’s like the Unity game engine. There are plenty of games pumped out that are just trash trying to make quick money, but there’s also gems being made by people with passion.

This image was saved way before AI image generation was a thing. This is a real McCoy.