Maybe more in line with the Fact Sphere: confidently claiming things that are frequently clearly false and/or off the wall

Ai Weiwei, minus the Weiwei

Many AI chatbots or chat assists are by default programmed to be saccharine to the point of disingenuousness. Don’t adjust your values to categorically match what they are programmed to praise or condemn. They appear on the surface as people-pleasers but are actually intended to please their distributor’s investors. Additionally and most critically, don’t fall into the trap of thinking of the machines as people.

With the AI tangent aside, with human interactions I definitely do feel the disparity between coddling and general treatment in society. If you’ve ever seen people interact with young kids or people with disabilities, especially mental disabilities, people often express overvaluing of their actions and creations to boost their confidence. While it may be a great achievement for that individual’s standards and capabilities and they do deserve praise for that much, lauding a simple piece of macaroni art as being better than the Mona Lisa, for example, is probably not genuine and can in fact undermine the creator’s confidence if they are aware enough to sense that lack of genuineness. However, for some people maybe they’d rather have that piece of macaroni art over the Mona Lisa because it is made by someone they love and care about and they highly value tokens of that person. Sometimes it can feel as if there is a conspiracy against someone if they notice a mismatch between the level of praise they receive and their presence and level of success in society elsewhere, and I too have experienced that sensation.

The 80’s will to be 50 years from now, too

Yeah, with the asterisk in the title and the discussion about it, I would think that this was the marketing plan from the start. The movie’s performance may have affected when exactly they decided to pull the trigger on the rebrand though.

I understand how to access it. I was meaning more so what sparks your motivation to investigate and/or share your findings?

Oof… yeah, that sort of tea kettle of targeted rage and violence seems more like a 4chan user. They also happened to find themself on some of the instances that have reputations of their own (I’m not referring to either of the two instances that you mentioned). Should I pre-emptively type Lembot_0003 to 9999 into my blocked accounts list?

What in particular prompts you to reply that to a user? As in, do you have a plug-in or something that indicates the number of mod actions taken against a user? Or do you recognize usernames and follow them around as they reply? The number of mod actions also doesn’t necessarily reflect the character of a user since there are always some unjust mods, and there are some actions which mods can take that aren’t punitive (ex. pinning posts).

Additionally, it comes across as an ad hominem attack.

I was curious to see who the offending mods/admins were. !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com is a good place to post about Lemmy authorities overstepping their bounds, especially if you feel it was particularly unjust.

This must have been with an alt account of yours? I don’t see any actions taken against your account in the mod log.

or you might prefer this version instead

I also came across this interesting series of Picassos while finding reference images

This is so much better. Thank you for spending the roughly 5 minutes to make this that OP should have spent instead of barfing out some soulless junk.

I was a little iffy on this one, but at the low image resolution it’s hard for me to tell for sure. The weird bat-dragon-owls are the most suspect to me. What in particular looks off to you?

You censored her feet?

Slop gets dropped. If there’s not a human behind the content, then I’m not going to consume or value it and I will do what I can to disadvantage it.

You’re not going to convince of a message by referring me to a clear piece of propaganda as a source. If one were to do what this user did and simply type out a message instead of ensconcing it in artificiality then I’d listen.

You’re the one that brought up the number of fingers, underscoring how little examination you even gave to that which you attempt to justify. Don’t attempt to deceive others by framing that as my position.

A Potemkin is a Potemkin, regardless of how well it deceives

If it was made with care then I’d expect some thought to be put into it. If it were like the Simpsons or a number of other cartoons for example, wherein a finger is intentionally omitted as an artistic choice, then that would justify a lack of accuracy. The finger count wasn’t even something that I brought up, and I didn’t even look into it in this case until someone else erroneously thought that my gripe was a lack of realism in the message. My gripe is a lack of human in the message, especially when someone wants there to be an imitation of one.

A medium posing as human craft is apathy for the presentation and therein exploitation of the audience. It’s like those spam letters I get sometimes that are made to look handwritten with a supposedly real human’s signature but are just factory-made and stamped on with a mechanized print pad and all they want is to solicit something from me via deception.

isn’t 4 fingered slop anymore

Slop gets dropped