For a moment I thought the comic was AI generated because of that. Exactly how many AI image generators make textual errors.

Had to look it up as well, but apparently it is how you type “hoe” in a calculator upside down…

Aren’t there like cheat servers and non-cheat servers? Or is that a “gentleman’s agreement” that not everyone is playing fair with if you can’t fully block it because of mods etc?

Value of art is always in the eye of the beholder. If many people see the value, then it receives that from the public.

I would not say AI generated art has the same value as the Mona Lisa per se, quite the contrary. I’m only declaring both as a form of art.

Yes, in the same way a field of corn on a farm can be seen as art. We do not have full control over how it actually looks in the end, but it’s an expression by natural phenomena (sometimes guided or initiated by humans).

You could argue about the amount of free will required to create art. But in that case one could philosophically raise the question if humans even have free will, and if anything may be called art then at all.

I think if something is observed as art, it is by definition art. And perhaps everything that exists and is created could fit that description. But personally one of the more interesting types of art to me are where living beings are involved in the creation, while they’re actually thinking of creating art; and I think most discussions are about that concrete level.

I’d say that open for discussion. Even taking a dump can be seen from the perspective of art, although I agree for us humans it’s quite far out there.

Perhaps to smallen the gap, think of a dung beetle rolling a ball of poo.

I’m not saying you have to like it or even that it’s noteworthy, but art in my opinion as definition can be anything that is created by something. As long as an observer looks at it as if it were art.

You’ve convinced me, your comment is objectively bad art.

I’d say everything is art, just on different levels to different people. Or nothing is art.

Chrome went to a :D above 99. But I believe they changed that, not sure as I use FF now too.

What if it was a form of damage control, where they could claim in the future at lawsuits that they had total transparency at the time of the event.

Please, I’m kidding. But it would be interesting.

I imagine it started with some sub-installations actually giving approximations that were acceptable and summed up, but then some finalizing was not taken into account or something needed to be added after the other processes are finished, and the deadline was close. That last part builds up over time with other quick additions and some annoying stuff that is actually quite performance heavy and not easy to incorporate through the whole installation. “Let’s do it at the end as well.”

No time / budget to change the 100% to 99% as they have to adjust calculations based on the processes that actually do a good job. Although a display change could fake it, priorities are elsewhere.

Sharing ideas can definitely be worth something when it leads to something actual original/concrete/useful, but on another level.

Most ideas these “creatives” come up with are neither of those + they are not willing to put in some effort to solidify the idea themselves.

The wiki link states software to be included in the definition. Management is not IT of course, but as there exists management in IT is used in the image I’d guess.

Plain copy paste without a critical view is not recommended, but it surely provides good pieces of code from time to time. Especially in obscure frameworks/languages, compared to what can be googled.

ChatGPT 4 is a really big difference with 3.5 though. What took me hours together with the 3.5, was fixed in a few minutes with 4.

Hasn’t it just lost its context and somewhat “forgotten” what the intentions of the prompt were?