Crowd intelligence

Thought I was having one of those Bearenstein Bears moments but there is another dog version of this
- Here is more context for the picture:
  
  I unironically love this and can't stop laughing. It's like the "technically correct" of dog drawings.
  
  Amazing, I’ve seen the original screenshot so many times but never this context
  
  lol thanks for the original original
- This one of my favorite memes of all time
  I always get a good laugh at it so thank you for posting
- Bearenstein
  nice one
  
  Just saying it the correct natural way, not sure what you mean

In the third grade, I won the science fair.
The competition was pretty strong. There was a kid who built a contraption to simulate a mini-tornado. Granted, it was probably his dad who built the thing, but still. There was another kid that built and programmed a robotics project. Again, probably his parents did a lot of the work, but the guy was super smart so I'm sure he did some of that work. One girl came up with an experiment to use fungus to grow plastics or something like that, I don't remember. It's been decades.
Me? The afternoon before the fair I had literally nothing. I grew up poor, we had a lot of junk laying around the house because my parents would go to the county dump site, dig through the trash, and bring home anything they thought was valuable or fixable. I managed to hobble together one of the light sensors from a broken night light to the electronics from a toy radio so that it only played when the lights were off. I stuffed that into a cardboard "robot". And the people judging the science fair loved it.
So fuck you Stephanie Petty, Chris McDonald, and Dequan Shaw and your rich ass parents and your entitled ass selves. I won bitches.
- I have a similar story from 2001, 8th grade science fair.
  One of the kids had a seismograph (parents) one had some bacteria thing (probably also parents, that kid was as dumb as the contents of his petri dishes) they all looked super professional and stuff and were obviously shit from books or the internet.
  I fucked around for weeks in class doing basically nothing and the night before threw together a hand written display with some info I looked up, painted a balloon and pvc pipe with paint, and stuck it on. The “project” was about the impact of static on heavy machinery and the idea of applying an insulating coating to reduce static buildup and transference on machine parts, displayed via balloon, pipe, and latex paint. Totally original idea (to me, anyway) and research and they thought it was great even tho it looked like complete shit.
  
  Similar story here. I once had an assignment which was a part of an art contest with the theme "how to make the world a better place."
  I simply took a photo of a tree and gave it the description of "I would make the world a better place by planting more native plants."
  I got an award for it and didn't think of it beyond that. Several years later I dated a friend from then, and it turns out I got first place in the entire school. She got second and put in effort with a drawing.
- All you needed was a sealed Chewie action figure
  
  Just be careful it doesn't get bent

Maybe unpopular opinion but the winner is objectively better art than second place. Left makes me feel whimsy and mild joy, and right just makes me think “frog.”
- Very clearly a toad. Points deducted.
  Edit: so apparently all toads are frogs, but not only that, this is a tomato frog and not a toad at all. My whole life is a lie and shit like this is why I have trust issues.
  
  I'll just put this here.
  
  ... toads are frogs.
  
  And that's why they didn't win, obviously
  
  Swear I almost wrote toad but just assumed I was wrong on the frog post.
- Yep. Some people think skill is art. They don't understand art. Skill is great, but art is something that makes you think or feel. The amount of skill involved doesn't matter, except as something you think or feel, which can also mean less skill is as valuable as more skill.
  
  I'd argue art is a communication medium. You can communicate minimally, or you can communicate with vast detail, both require skill.
  Art museums are full of work that says nothing, but passed a few gatekeepers with clout keys or shock value.
  Skilled rendering with nothing to say is as unimpressive as deep ideas communicated by random spatter. The viewer isn't getting anything from it, no matter how trendy their turtleneck is.
  I take a bit of issue with this idea that "the amount of skill involved doesn't matter", because that's the exact logic used to say artists shouldn't be able to afford a living, or could be replaced by algorithms.
  (And yet we easily spot and mock visually exciting Ai renderings for how soulless and empty they are.)
  Yes, we've seen impressive high-skill ultra-real pencil renderings that, in the end could sadly be replaced by a photograph, because there was no interpretation involved.
  And we've seen awards presented for sticking bananas on walls as a "critique of modern society."
  Art is a skill. It's a hard skill, because it's not a solitary pursuit solely anchored in visual perfection. If nobody can understand or appreciate your point, it falls apart.
  
  Na, both are important in Art. I find it totally valid to equal skill with Art and also understand if you disagree on that, but saying that equaling them means you don't "understand" Art is pretty harsh. After all, making you think or feel something is a skill in itself. A super detailed and close to reality picture of a frog makes me think quite a lot about the amount of time and work involved, lets me marvel at the Details and, well, skill of the artist.

Obviously the one on the left is a froggo, the one on the right is a frog and should have been banned from the contest.

A day early. It’s not yet Wednesday, my dudes.
EDIT: Is now Wednesday.
- Where?
  
  Here.
- AAAAHHHHHHH
- You're wrong though, it's definitely Wednesday right here right now. Also, how does time work?
- Nah, it's perfect for us UTC+10'ers

It’s going to be fun for future generations see this and notice who won the presidency twice…and who are the influencers.
I think the current generation are going to be hated way more than boomers when it comes to who fucked the world up the worst. There are so many receipts.
- It's kinda early to make that call for the younger generations, don't you think? Imagine if the legacy of Boomers was tied to what they did in their youth. We'd know them as little more than peace-talking hippies (on one end), to consumerist yuppies (on the other end.) In the decades since their 20s, Boomers have solidified a very different self image. Now, nearing the end of their influence (at least, I fucking hope so), their legacy is basically sealed.
  In turn, the current generation of youngin's still has many, many years to make a name for themselves. We have to wait and see until the kids even younger than them grow up, because as the people who will be around longer than the rest of us, they will be the ones choosing what the rest of our legacies are.
  
  Nah they're fucked, enjoy the collapse losers
- "This is how the world ends: Not with a bang, but with frivelously cast ironic votes because lols."
- Excuse you, our Lord and Savior won the election three times, all fair and square! One of them was shamelessly stolen despite all the evidence to the contrary. /s

This is what the AI are trained on

Well, second place is a frog, first place is a froggo, they understood the game.
- 2nd is clearly labeled as the funkiest of frogs, which should qualify it as a froggo
  
  He may be the funkiest of frogs and he looks like a pretty funky frog, but he ain't no froggo!

Froggy McFrogface

Both were recognized. Everyone loves an underdog
- *underfrog

One has heart the other just has skill, talent and technique.
- and practice and color and detail and gradients and effort and lighting and a hashtag and...

Art is Subjective, and as my Subjects you will Like what I tell you to Like!

I mean they're both cute, buttt

Edge culture is so annoying

And teachers encourage this having students vote on the winner even when objective criteria is available
- What is the objective criteria?
  
  More than ten strokes
- Is it not possible that drawing #1 evokes the most joy? What are the voting criteria?
  
  “Do you like this picture of a frog”

People: "omg why are you using AI to make a picture of a frog. Just grab a pen and paper and whatever you do will be better than what AI can generate" Also people: "lol. This pen and paper drawing is awful. I can't believe it won Against this high quality obviously better detailed drawing of a frog"
- "better detailed" doesn't necessarily mean "better art" ...
  Art being fidel to reality is it's own subset of art movement, called realism. Many people appreciate it as "wow this is so close to real life/so much effort", but then if you ask people what they think the greatest artworks are they might bring any artist. Van Gogh, Da Vinci, Dalí, Picasso, Pollock, etc.
  So no, just because something is closer to real life does not make it "objectively the best art" in the broader sense of art. Maybe you can measure that when pit against other realism pieces, which sre not as faithful to real life.
  
  I'm know that. I'm not arguing that detailed is better. It's the post that is arguing that, with it's implied "I can't believe that thing got the first place".
  My point is that better is better no matter how it's made. It could be pretty or ugly, made with paint or digital, AI or no AI
- This is older than AI.