Post by PixelPhantoms in Sin or Live comments

Viewing post in Sin or Live comments

This was the most gaslighting and non-sense comment I've seen in a while.

If we don't care - why spend lots of time everyday making a game? If you played the game you've seen in the end that we plan to add not only an artist for art. Also voiceover, animations and more & EXACT NUMBERS of supporters we need for every new addition.

It's all calculated and is pretty straight forward. We are serious about it and are willing to invest our resources to make the game better.

You call it "BS" because you wouldn't do that and judge others by comparing to yourself.

When it comes to hiring an artist - you can't ask someone to build a good house for you without paying them. They studied for years and deserve getting paid.

We want only quality. Artists that can provide the quality we want - aren't willing to do it for free (we've tried). That's why things are the way they are now. As soon as we hit the number of supporters required - an artist will be invited.

Also you just said that all supporters have less than "two braincells" - all you do is gaslighting and calling everyone names (based on your account activity lol). That's pathetic.

If you are really that much smarter and talented than all of us - show us the game YOU made without paying artists and where the art is top tier.

Don't have it? Opinion rejected.

-akabara

Watts (about 100)29 days ago(+2)(-2)

Oh damn, little kitty Akabara's got claws, hear him roar!

In all seriousness though, I cannot express how much your comment made me giggle like a madman, so thank you for posting. It really made my day.

Onto the post though, uh, you don't know what gaslighting means. Like at all. Using words you don't quite understand makes you sound kind of… I'm not even gonna try to sugarcoat it for you, just use a dictionary when you try to sound smart, please. It's the bare minimum you can do when you make a post that I have to read.

The other thing is that you clearly do not care about making a game. If you did, you'd use your own art for the placeholders. Or you'd literally just use stock assets for placeholders. I also suspect you probably used ChatGPT or some other program to write parts of this game, but I don't have any proof for that, it's just speculation, but I am more than familiar enough with the AI bros like you to confidently say that you probably have used it once or twice in the formation of your creation. (I'm also not interested in playing your game whatsoever). I imagine you'd deny this claim whether or not you actually did use GPT, so don't bother denying it, as I don't really care what you say. You already used AI art for the visuals, so it's not that much of a stretch to imagine that you probably also used AI for other aspects of the game that you've supposedly "created". (Assuming you didn't just steal the entire game outright.) This kind of thing also ties back into the use of AI at all, in that it is objectively theft. You can disagree with it all you like, but when it comes down to it, it's not an actual artificial intelligence that is "recreating" art - it's a program that is designed to mash two pre-made things together doing so. There's a difference (even if it's not one you might recognize), and you are the one using it.

On that topic, let's play a little game of pretend and imagine that you make a piece of art of something. Let's say you make a painting. The very next day, I come out with the exact same painting - and it's not just a "recreation", it is the exact. Same. Painting. One for one. Now in this hypothetical, I didn't actually copy you - I made it myself, no inspiration nor theft required. Now here's the big part you as the reader need to think about - do both paintings have value - not just artistically, but also independently of each other? I would argue yes, because they're both made by human beings, both with feelings and emotions behind them. As a matter of fact, I would argue that the human mind (or the "soul" if you want to get philosophical) is the most important part in this equation. Now imagine if my painting was actually just an AI that copied it. Then I'd argue that my painting is not of value because a human being did not create it.

"But I gave the AI the prompt, so I still had a hand in creating it," an absolute lobotomite would argue. And in response, I would say that you do not have a hand in creating it whatsoever because you didn't learn the skills necessary to actually make the art in the first place, thus, you are not the creator. The people that made the works the AI is trained on are the creators, and not those that generate the prompts. Anybody with a functioning brainstem and a couple of fingers is capable of writing a prompt, it takes an actual person with thoughts and skills to create art, not just some clown mashing some keys and getting a thing and throwing it online somewhere and saying "it's mine", because LITERALLY ANYONE can do that. (Would you say that someone like Henry Ford made all mass-manufactured products because he had a hand in popularizing the concept of the production line? You most certainly shouldn't, and that same concept applies here.)

Art is made with an intent and a deliberate goal - it's not just "oh I want this thing", because anyone can think of something cool, it's ACTUALLY MAKING THE DAMN THING which is the important part. It's a combination of intent and vision, and as I have previously shared, I have a complex network of why I value human beings that create art and not AI. (Also, this mindset applies to all types of art - movies, games, photography, paintings, etc.) But you're using AI, for the placeholders that are in your game. Thus, you're not actually interested in making art. You just want someone to make art "for free" because you'd rather it be simple and free, even though you also just contradicted yourself in the exact same post, so I'm honestly kind of confused about what you actually even believe.

Do you want to pay artists and help them financially, or would you rather get their hard work for free? Please, enlighten me on your ever-so-complicated philosophical meanderings of why stealing may-or-may-not be okay, oh wise one, I pray that you might inform me as to the wisdom of your holiness, mister genius of the ages. (Just in case you didn't get it, I was being sarcastic. (I feel the need to spell this out explicitly for you because that's how lowly I think of people like you.) (By writing this, I'm also knowingly tossing you a freebie to use in your own potential argument against me because I've used this joke to degrade the poster I'm arguing against (who in this case is you, but has been a different person in the past (and again, I'm spelling all of this out for you because I think it's funny to both explicitly and implicitly but also explicitly tell you what I think your intellect is at)) before in a previous argument, so go ahead and be sure to add that into any potential response.) To be honest, I'm almost kinda feeling bad for ripping on you so violently at this point, as it's actually now turning into a merciless bloodbath from my end, but I'll be sure to inform your next-of-kin. Also I should note for your sake that I lied, I don't feel that bad, I think it's actually pretty funny because I think you're not the brightest of the bunch. (Do I need to explain myself further, or do you get the joke at this point? I guess it's not really a joke, it's moreso wrapped back around to explicitly being just an insult. I'd put an expletive here to cap it off, but I find it funnier just making this tangent even longer than it already is. (I imagine you don't think it's funny, but the good news I've got in regards to that little tidbit is that I don't actually care about what you think whatsoever. I'm moreso just continuing this little side-tangent to spite you because that's kind of what I am doing with this entire comment, if you think about it - but I doubt you can. And there's the natural conclusion of this little tangent, as mentioned previously.))

Also, if you think all I'm doing is calling people names in these comments after reading all of that, you should probably go back to grade-school. I'm very obviously arguing and name-calling because I enjoy doing both and because I am also quite good at doing both, you just need to get better at reading comprehension. Along that topic, it's not lost on me that you felt the need to go through the comments I've made. It actually makes me think that you are on some level aware of how bad your arguments are, and feel the need to add to them a little bit, especially since I've got a habit of droning on and on like this, and that you feel inept in comparison. Maybe that's not the case, but with people like you (who is basically just a natural extension of a college frat-bro, though I imagine you haven't gone to college and would presumably not quite get the idea I'm dunking on you with, but I suppose I'll permit you to go unawares of my insult, as I do like to have some free time that isn't just for shitposting like this), I am aware of the whole "size matters" concept, so if we are doing a genital-measuring contest, I'm afraid I've got you beat both in terms of actual size of said appendage and when it comes to intelligence - and writing skill. And like, basically every other category that I care about.

Anyway, it's quite funny that you, someone who is ostensibly financially incentivized to "defend" your "product", is arguing with me, as I find myself wondering if you're just arguing because I bruised your fragile little ego, or if there's any other possible reason behind it? I'm not even trying to hint towards anything with that question, I'm just genuinely unsure about the answer. I also feel the need to ask, for the sake of anyone that might be interested in your "game", are you counting responding to me as "on-the-clock" or "off-the-clock"? I don't think you even get what I'm trying to say with that. Actually, just ignore that last question, I don't want you to get too confused, so don't worry your pretty little head about it. Onto the next post.

Watts (about 100)29 days ago(+1)(-2)

I'm not comparing anything anyone has done to myself. I'm taking your work on (more or less) its own merits and I've found that it's just straight-up not worth my time to engage with. I don't know why you'd think I'm making comparisons to anyone whatsoever, but I guess now it's just because we're doing a shit-flinging contest and you feel the need to try to get a dig at me wherever possible, even if it's total nonsense. (I guess I am more or less the sole person making it a shit-flinging contest at this point.) You are free to try to continue insulting me in the manner that you were with that bit, but I'll spoil it for you that I'm afraid there's not much ground there. Try insulting me in another way. (Or don't, any response you give is gonna be funny either way, so do whatever you'd prefer.) That, or it just simply goes back to you feeling insecure and too afraid to admit to yourself so you ascribe your own problems onto me, but either way, it's not really something that serves you too well.

At this point I'm not really gonna bother with pretending to respond to your points in a respectful fashion as I (more or less) previously was before the start of this paragraph, as AI bros like you don't really deserve it, but you can use that as an argument against me somehow as well, if you'd like. To be honest, I kinda just want to see how you'll respond to this. Even I, the person that initially might have cared about the arguments, doesn't really care as much anymore, so I'm just winging it, and I'll get to each of the points as I like. Uh, you are the one that has sole access to your financial statements, but even if you made all of your finances public, there'd still be plenty of doubt regarding them, so how do we know you haven't hit the "exact number" of supporters at some point previously? Sure, they've been public, but supporters come and go, how does the audience know for a fact that you haven't hit the goal already? I doubt there's someone watching your numbers 24/7. Or maybe you'll just change the goal in the future. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if you suddenly stopped updating one day and just ran off with the money. I've seen plenty of creators do something akin to that, and there's been people that have stuck around to support them.

Also if you were interested in making the game as good as possible, you should have made the game and then put the game up on Itch.io to make the money back that you spent, but you didn't, so I imagine you're actually just more interested in getting as much money as possible. I mention this point because you clearly used AI in the game (as you admitted to), and not because you haven't finished the game, and though one could argue not releasing the full game before it's ready is potentially something that could be considered greedy, that's quite a bit more nuanced and I have to wonder if you even know what that word means, so I'll just skip writing that section altogether for everyone's sake.

Back to the main point, though, I am saying that I wouldn't be surprised if you somehow found a way to skirt the rules you've set for yourself, because again, people like you tend to be pretty invested in doing that when it comes to money, so whether or not the goals written on your Patreon are accurate or not, I'm gonna have to cast some doubt on your relationship with honesty because again, using AI will elicit that response from people. Especially from me. Feel free to scroll up to re-read the longest bit of this post if you've forgotten that discussion, or don't if that's too much effort for you.

It's also very interesting how you are one of the first people, a creator, who has mentioned my history of arguing on this platform. I argue with people for fun because it's something that I like doing, and I use it as an outlet for my own artistic preferences, plus I'm arguing with people about things that I think are correct. You, on the other hand, clearly only actually care about making money, and because I insulted your behavior and publicly bruised your ego in the comments of your own game, feel the need to defend your creation because you're more concerned about your sun-dwarfing ego and how you appear to others. And while I sympathize, because I too very clearly have a sun-dwarfing ego, the thing is that I'm actually both more capable of taking an insult AND admitting that I have big ego, so I dunno, in terms of being pathetic, that seems to be a win on my end - one that I am happy enough to walk away with and to finally stop writing this behemoth of a post, even if I still have a myriad of arguments and things to say that I could continue to publicly flog you with, but I think I have proven my point.

You're more than welcome to try and continue arguing with me, but with the type of person you are, I fully expect you to either delete one or more of my comments, block me from commenting and then make some "sick dunks" attempting (and failing) to argue against me, not respond to this comment at all, or do some combination of those decisions. Unfortunately for you, I've already won. Not only have I now insulted you violently and multiple times publicly in the comments of your own game, I've also more than kicked the hell out of your ego - and I have both the skill and will to keep going. At this point, responding to me is gonna just turn into a Road Runner cartoon - I write something, you think you've got the upper hand, but shocker, I outwit you at the very last second.

I'd suggest just taking the bruised ego at this point, especially since I presume this is going to be something you're ruminating on for years afterward - and I would know, as I was somebody like you, and even to this day I still think about making a "sick dunk" on people I had a minor disagreement with when I was younger. Honestly, whenever you're done with your bruised ego, I would start by looking inward. (By that, I mean that you should at least stop using AI for more than just the reasons that I've given. If you're gonna make a game or if you're going to do something artistically, start with making it all yourself, and not just the aspects of the game that you've made thus far. (At this point, I'm trying to actually get across to you and write as if you were a human being - because despite what you might think, I do ACTUALLY feel bad for you - specifically, I feel bad that you're the person that you currently are, because I know for a fact that you aren't happy nor fulfilled in your life, so start now by changing yourself gradually. Again, I know this for a fact because I used to be you. And then I got better.))

Anyway, back on to your point of, "but if you're so talented, make a game, Mr. poster!" While I am claiming I have a skill in making art (as arguing with skill is something that takes at least a modicum of intelligence and time), I'm not suggesting that I have any talent in regards to making video games - that's supposed to be something you're doing, but instead you're reliant on using AI that's trained on (and is using other people's work) to make up for your own lack of skill in terms of the visual medium, and you're also committing theft while you're at it. You apparently have not put any definite money towards hiring people to actually make the art, so who's making the art for your game thus far? This connects back to several of the points I made previously, and my interest in coherently tying those arguments back to this is waning. That's lucky you, though I do still have the steam to keep going. I don't need to conform to the expectations of you to prove that I'm better than you, I can just simply be better. As stated previously, I also don't care what you think. Onto the last post.

Watts (about 100)29 days ago(+1)(-2)

Anyway, if you keep using the "if you're so talented, do it yourself" argument, I sure hope you do literally everything on your own (or at least don't ever criticize or complain about things that you don't make on your own), because that logic can apply to everywhere and everything you have a problem with. Did you make the data-centers that power the AI that you use yourself? Did you make your computer yourself? Did you mine the minerals and learn the skills required to make your computer? Do you make food that you eat every day? Did you make the building that you live in, and do you maintain it still? Did you plan and design the entire city, state, and nation that you currently reside in? No? Then you don't get to complain about any of it at any point - your logic is nonsense when taken to its most obvious conclusion. You're spouting arguments that don't actually mean anything because you don't really understand the points that I am making, nor do you understand the logic that you're attempting to use. You just have some opinions and the reasoning follows from there, not the other way around. I can't really expect any better from AI bros, though, as they're interested in the potential financial gains from AI more than anything else.

I'd also suggest looking into whether or not you (the reader, whoever that might be) could be "on the spectrum" - I don't mean that as an insult to anyone, I mean that genuinely, especially when it comes to spending an excess of time on something that has weird arbitrary rules and is also more likely than most others to have some degree/kind of, for lack of a better term, "autism". Again, I'm not using that as a means to insult, I am harnessing my own frustrations of discovering that I am also VERY on the spectrum (go figure, I was the last person to figure that out) and using this as a means of at least trying to have some kind of positive impact on people outside of my own bubble. I suppose those reasons could technically be one long reason, but I'm very rapidly losing interest in writing this, so read into it however you like. Regardless, I think it's fairly pertinent that people seriously consider and do some amount of research into whether or not they might be disabled mentally in some regard, as I'd argue it's better to know an unfortunate truth than not know it - I would know. (I primarily want to exemplify the "I'm not using autism as a slur" part in case mods are reading and may or may not be looking for a reason to stop me from posting more of my bullshit, though I doubt anyone except me will get to this point for some time because it's fairly meandering and in the comments of a game that realistically few people will engage with. All of this is mostly just an exercise to prove to myself that I can go the mile. Also it's to flex to anyone else that might read through my comment history that I am more than happy to spend my time, energy, and willpower on doing something stupid and fairly meaningless like this, so probably best for one's own ego to not draw my ire, even if they think I am unjustified in my arguments. Or do, this stuff has been and will continue to be something that I enjoy.)

Note that I might update one or both of these comments later, especially if someone with the ability tries to keep me from arguing even further - I've spent so much time on this post that the "gambler's fallacy" has set in. The only other relevant point that I can come up with is that someone might think of saying "lol mad". If you want to you can think of me being mad (because, again, at the end of the day, I don't actually care what any of you think), but the fact of the matter is that I'm writing this moreso because I'd like people to stop using AI and to improve their lives in some capacity, however that might be.

The fact of the matter is that either you improve your life as I'd like you to or you won't - and if you don't, then that's not my problem. It's not been my problem this whole time, but again, I'd like to at least pretend I am having some kind of positive impact on the world, even if it might be interpreted as meaningless or pointless or whatever. Anyway, do as you will.

(Also, my previous post was "the most gaslighting nonsense comment you've seen in a while"? You haven't seen jack shiiiiiit. I can write the most irrelevant crap and tie it right back into my main point ten-fold, as I've just proven, don't tempt me. I'd make another arrogant comment like, "I am god and you are nothing before me", but my will has waned and I am finally done writing this crap. Also the sign-off of "opinion rejected" might've sounded good in your head, in reality you just sound like what I thought "cool" was when I was in middle-school.)

Watts (about 100)29 days ago (2 edits) (+1)(-2)

To get in front of the most uninteresting and overplayed insult, these comments were not a matter of "touching grass", they were a matter of free time - comment "get a job" or something along those lines.

If you're gonna be petty, at least be accurate, please.

Hell, here's another (I guess?) point someone can use against me - why am I actively giving the opposition arguments to use against me? It's because I know exactly what you people are thinking and I'd like to see one or two of you actually arguing against me in a coherent and well founded fashion, even if it's wrong, I'd rather have you be wrong for the right reasons than correct for the wrong ones.

fabricated127 days ago(+1)(-1)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, I had to make an account just to reply to this. Im going to feed your replies into an AI and ask it to point out your own contradictions:

Major Contradictions

1. Caring vs. Not Caring Claims "I don't actually care what any of you think" while simultaneously expressing desire to change people's behavior and "have some kind of positive impact on the world."

2. Wanting Feedback vs. Rejecting It Requests "coherent and well founded" arguments but then states "I don't actually care what you say."

3. Emotional State Denies being mad while explicitly acknowledging "harnessing my own frustrations" and aggressive behavior throughout.

4. Meaningfulness Calls their argument "stupid and fairly meaningless" while claiming "I've already won" and continuing to invest enormous effort into it.

5. Criticism of Name-Calling Criticizes the opponent for "calling everyone names" while extensively using insults like "lobotomite," "clown," and "not the brightest of the bunch."

6. Genuine Concern vs. Weaponized Advice Claims the autism suggestion is "genuine" concern while admitting to "harnessing my own frustrations" and using it within a barrage of insults.

7. Self-Awareness About Ego Admits to having a "sun-dwarfing ego" and claims to be self-aware, while simultaneously making grandiose supremacist statements throughout.

8. Time Investment Defends having "free time" for comments while acknowledging the "gambler's fallacy has set in" due to excessive investment—essentially admitting to the behavior they're defending against.

Watts (about 100)27 days ago (6 edits) (+1)(-1)

Aside from not only being an AI bro, you're also apparently too incapable of actually thinking up your own arguments because your brain is too smooth. Please, keep using AI if you'd like, I can't really control that, but just know that you're using it as a replacement for having intelligent thought independent of what corporations want you to and it actively degrades your own life as a result. You could have a better life if you'd do some of the rational thinking on your own, but you don't, so you won't. (Note how it doesn't respond to any of my arguments about why AI is garbage? Yeah, that's for a couple reasons - but by using it and uploading the arguments to respond to me, it could be argued that you're just capitulating to what I've said about it being theft. You're incompetent and stupid, and even the technology is indirectly admitting to that by not touching it.)

Furthermore, I'm responding to your post to inform that I'm blocking you because I'm not going to continue risk engaging with the demon-technology. Please, feed this all into the Torment Nexus as you'd like, but I will not be having a hand in it any further than what I can control.

And for anyone that's stupid enough to continue to try using AI against me, I am measurably more wise than your machine. Intelligent, perhaps not, as (if we are using D&D terms) intellect is the depth of knowledge one can have, whereas wisdom is how intelligence is used. I am wise and able to communicate in a variety of ways on a variety of topics, whereas the machine is dependent on what has come before. The machine might beat me in chess or any number of small controlled environments, but it will never beat me in living my life.

To cap off this response, here's a relevant quote; "Humans set their own guidelines. This is not something machines can do. Reasoning depends on programming, not on hardware, and we are the ultimate program! Our Jihad is a "dump program". We dump the things which destroy us as humans!" - written by Frank Herbert in his book series, Dune

Also for more discussion on why I am going to continue annihilating your robotic anti-human machines, please watch Terminator or Terminator 2, read the previously mentioned Dune books, or engage with the sci-fi medium outside of any corporate robot trash that might be clouding your mind. Be a human, not a machine.

Watts (about 100)27 days ago (2 edits) (-1)

It's also not lost on me that the only kind of response I've gotten up to this point is from one of the aforementioned AI-cultists that insists on using their machine-god to make them less weak. Almost like even the creator can't fully come up with a well-founded argument against me. (Or they just don't care to read paragraphs of me insulting them, but if they actually cared, they would go through the whole thing and argue against me.) And don't get me wrong, I'm not insulting anyone for not coming up with a response, I'm insulting people for not coming up with a response while using their own mind against me. You can't beat me, both on my and your terms. Almost like the whole argument for AI is bullshit, huh?

I have more respect for people that actually come up with even incorrect arguments if they're made by a human being. (And while my respect for it is not much, I feel the need to mention that it's still more than zero.) Again, this goes back to "I'd rather you be wrong for the right reasons than be right for the wrong ones," as I mentioned in a previous post.

And I'm going to continue blocking people that are using AI. At least think about the arguments you use if you're using AI to assist you in arguing against me - a little human intelligence is better than none. This is why I've not yet blocked the creator - even if they are using AI for writing or creation of their work, they're arguing against me themselves. A stupid person is still a person, whereas AI is less than nothing. (Also note that this is the main reason I'm not actually engaging with the AI-cultist's post - if someone else wants to use those points against me, they are free to, but any argument not altered by a human mind is not one I'm especially interested in engaging with. It's definitely something I can make plenty of points against, but I'm going to allow another rational and non-robotic being the chance to bring those points before me in a non-AI presented manner before I respond.)

Deleted post27 days ago

Deleted 27 days ago

Watts (about 100)27 days ago(+1)(-1)

Who are you? What are you even talking about?

What the actual fuck is happening in this thread? Are you all just lacking your entire brainstem? Is this a meme? Am I "being trolled"?

View more in thread

itch.io

Viewing post in Sin or Live comments

Major Contradictions