It’s just funny that the simple one would win. It’s like a whitebelt getting a technical win against a judo master—it’s just funny that it happened.

Both of these frog images are the work of people, though, which is something AI can’t give you, so…

What is the objective criteria?

Okay, but now do housing and groceries and you’ll see why people don’t have extra money laying around for another Nintendo and its Mario kart.

Okay. So, they won’t buy one then.
Yeah, people don’t make enough money, I agree.

(maybe lower them),

Okay, I’m going to laugh really hard.

HA HAAAA hahahahaha

God, that was good.

I’m asking this sincerely: where are those people working now? They gotta be working something, right?

is to do a comparison between them and come to the conclusion that the two things are very different.

Mate, they did that. That’s exactly what they did, and they told us how.

repeat all steps until you have the number of items desired

Holllld the fuck. My self checkout has a loose limit of 25 items, who the hell is getting 20 items from a vending machine?

I don’t have to wait behind old people who take a fucking eternity to find their wallet.

She’s still there, she’s just stuck at one of the six kiosks while Americans finally figured out how to queue in one line.

Ah, but you’re forgetting the emotional labor of forcing your lips to say “hi” while awkwardly shifting your eyes away from the cashier because after 20 years of life in your lonely, desolate suburban wasteland with nothing to do, nowhere to go, and no people to see, you’ve grown unimaginably socially anxious and you’ve completely forgotten how to talk to anyone.

Frankly, I think you’re just a luddite, or something. You… hate… barcode scanners, just admit it.

so why the pretence that this particular shape, the “R. Mutt” signature, has significance?

Because reinterpretation is not an art historian’s job.

The original reaction is lost to time, dude. A modern audience is, broadly, already aware of the transgressive urinal, and so already more accepting of it. There is no recreating the piece. There is only recreating what it was.

If you think that’s BS

I don’t, other than it seems to be something you’ve written specifically to tick the boxes you think I’m looking for.

Would it baffle you to know I might consider this “critique” to be art where the image itself is not? I leave that as an exercise to the reader.

But anyway. Yet again, your contempt for the modern art world really betrays your jealousy of it. Do I just take your word for it that these critics have nothing to say?

If you think that the writings of these critics are smug, self-important hogwash, then why are you using their tools, the tools of the enemy, to justify to me why I should care about this talking cup?

Again, to the crowd: this is why what barsoap is saying is bullshit. It’s just a chess move to them. They don’t actually believe any of this. Their sole motivation is salvaging gen AI’s reputation.

buy a random [urinal] off the shelf, then proclaim it to be original.

This is profoundly offensive to art history, actually. A museum?

People go to great lengths to preserve CRT setups for old video games, but you’re like “nah, a TV is as good as any other.”

Dude, your contempt for art is insane. I’m telling you, you’re jealous that I respect the profane and “meaningless” urinal and not your AI toys.

Were they chuckling because the talking glass confuses and upsets the rule-of-three comedy technique being used?

I guess I’m talking to the crowd here because this is important: The reason this is notable evidence of AI and not human choice is because it is incoherent.

People know what a knock-knock joke is, and it wouldn’t work so well to say “knock-crack” for a chuckle but still expect me to ask “who’s there?” after. In comedy, and in visual art, the talking glass is an example of poor grammar.

A person, a human artist, could say knock-crack to me. Maybe they just have poor grammar generally. Maybe they did intentionally choose or ask for a giant talking cup for no reason, even though it harms the other joke they’re obviously interested in telling. But I flatly don’t believe this. It is far easier to believe this is random noise from the machine we already know generates random noise.

barsoap is reaching for the stars here to justify something they know is bullshit.

Oh my god.

Jesus christ.

I was thinking, “nah, that seems nitpicky, I’m sure a real person could write either.” But that is the entire setup for the punchline. I’m gonna rip my hair out.

This Excel joke is pulling on 100 years of surrealist cultural history? That’s incredible.

As a connoisseur, maybe you can explain why the oversized glass is talking about itself to me.

Why should anyone be interested in a urinal on a pedestal?

It is incredible how jealous AI-hornies are of the toilet.

This might seem like an odd thing to say, but it seems too well-made for stick figure art. It’s too perfect, but for seemingly no reason. It’s got no verve, no life to it, but its lines are so perfect that it’s weird it doesn’t have those things, you know? Someone with this degree of skill wouldn’t make something this boring to look at unless it was part of the joke, but I don’t think it is?

It’s very strange.

The only person I can imagine drawing this manually is, like, an office worker who has this idea for a joke but who also doesn’t really know what memes are on the Internet—like when someone misuses the success baby or something.

If you’re going to pout, we can put you in the corner. That might be funny.

It’s friday and I’m going to have plenty of drinks, there will be no soda in sight.

Um… congratulations?

If the app was elevated as a point of protest, then people only knew about it because it went viral recently.

Lemmy was also briefly elevated during the Reddit exodus.

They’re saying .world is anti-china.