>>60507897
>I can tell you put a lot of effort into getting this good
>they are cute
thank you

>I don't like when you start the same arguments repeatedly
y-you don't seem to understand

>I also like amateur drawings
i suspect technical skills do not inherently translate in charm. its impossible to predict what kind of practice will help growth since art preference and styles are open-ended. thus artists should « do what works for them » (irreducible).

>unprovokedly say she had more moral integrity than everyone
sorry im autistic and the concept of reputation does not exist to me. there is just data, abstraction, art works, all of which are self-contained. i am unintentionally blunt, which makes me isolated and an easy target for abuses since anyone can easily frame me as bad. but autists are not psychopaths, my communications do not reflect my intents.

>the mere fact that something is made by AI to reduce the soul in it
i wrote a related philosophical post somewhere, not sure if interested or if the style is too weird

`the slop / gestalt duality may be a philosophical razor identifying the respective absence or existence of hypothetical higher-order fixed-point. e.g. f(x) = f (slop: a static, reductive, inert, low-energy state; gestalt: a dynamic, emergent, self-becoming, transformation). unfortunately, f may be untypable in standard type theory being infinite but may exist in computational terms if the latter is more expressive than the former. (this does not prove semantic qualia is or is not computational in a philosophical sense but it might be its closest known model, sharing the same characteristics of irreducibility, chaotic behaviors, etc.) in culture, individuals who finds ai art uninteresting is not necessarily due to algorithmic flaws, but because there is no « journey » associated with it which would be its own destination and self-perpetuating inspiration. however this is relative, individuals interested in technology may see it differently.`