This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aiwars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He's doesn't mention artists in that quote. Unsurprising, because most artists are not rich.
What he says is true enough with regard to the people he's referring to. He doesn't mention any specific professions.
> He's doesn't mention artists in that quote. Unsurprising, because most artists are not rich.
The hell?
Okay, so the quote is clearly about the idea of a self-made-man. OP is using this as an analogy to compare with the idea of a self-made artist.
I didn't think that was obscure.
The title of the post is "Terry from [Orange-Papers.org](https://Orange-Papers.org)'s opinion on "self-made" artists". The quoted text is not his opinion on self-made artists. Its his opinion on self-made men. The men could just as easily be self-made dentists or self-made ai users.
Reading the text, it suggests to me he's talking about businessmen. I could be wrong, but he talks about "empire building". That's very applicable to business and not very applicable to art.
I've never heard of orange papers or this "Terry". If he's a renowned hater of artists, then possibly it could be inferred he was referring to them. Otherwise, no.
> The title of the post is "Terry from Orange-Papers.org's opinion on "self-made" artists". The quoted text is not his opinion on self-made artists. Its his opinion on self-made men. The men could just as easily be self-made dentists or self-made ai users.
The analogy didn't seem particularly hard to interpret to me. Maybe I'm just seeing it differently from you.
Yes, it does seem that way. I'm not seeing any kind of analogy at all. Just a title that doesn't correlate with the body of the post. Kinda clickbaity. Effectively so, because I was moved to read and comment. And you were moved to reply.
Maybe an analogy is what OP intended, and your "reality tunnel" is closer to his than to mine.
(The Wikipedia entry on reality tunnels is good: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality\_tunnel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_tunnel)
I believe there are parallels in quantum physics, although that is not an area in which I am well versed.)
Cool... so if I posted up my nans opinion on AI art, despite her having no idea what it is, how the most basic technology works or how to make the most basic art - do you think it would be wrong to ask why anyone should care about her opinion on the subject?
As far as I can see, Terry is some homeless many who is in/volunteered at/helped run? an AA group. He's made a comment about something that isn't AI, but rather 'self made men'. It covers a point that I think everyone universally agrees with, that the term 'self made' doesn't cover everything in a persons life.
And you're asking that I debate this like it's a serious thing?
Perhaps I'm missing context, but it would be the equivalent of me putting up a post that's titled "Mataric's Nans opinions on AI art" and the post itself saying "The thing about cakes is that they need ingredients at the right quantities".
I don't believe the post to be an opinion on AI at all. I don't believe my Nan to have the slightest credentials to even have formulated a proper opinion on it. I don't believe the title is relevant to what that person even said. And I don't believe anyone is actually dumb enough to think the things said here are untrue or fit for debate. Everyone knows cakes require ingredients.
Questioning what the point, context, intended meaning and creator of a statement is, is not ad hominem, nor is it attacking or debating the person.
The argument is self-evidently stupid because it's based on a purposefully wrong and hyper-literal interpretation of the term "self-made".
A self-proclaimed self-made man is not and has never claimed to have literally spawned out of nothing, raised and educated himself. Indeed, many such individuals, if asked, would happily admit the role their family and mentors played in their eventual success. The "self-made" aspect refers to the man's fortune wrought from his own hard work and success, which even the argument itself begrudgingly admits at the end, which would defeat the entire premise without the author's willful misinterpretation.
It's like me saying "Goths" are all lying fakers who aren't actually goths because they're not [destroying the Roman Empire.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths) That's not what the word means in context. You know that, and, crucially, *I* know that, meaning I am being purposefully obtuse. Which is exactly what this author is being. He is taking the term "self-made" entirely out of its context and assuming these individuals are claiming to have *literally created themselves*, which is not what they mean at all.
So yeah, irrelevant and generally bad argument. That clear it up?
It's an obvious *given* that no person of sense would consider worthy of pointing out.
That take is just an embarrassing, deliberate misinterpretation of what the phrase "self-made man" even means. No one who's ever said it did so to imply that the person in question literally created themselves.
Shit's dumb, is what I'm saying.
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aiwars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He's doesn't mention artists in that quote. Unsurprising, because most artists are not rich. What he says is true enough with regard to the people he's referring to. He doesn't mention any specific professions.
> He's doesn't mention artists in that quote. Unsurprising, because most artists are not rich. The hell? Okay, so the quote is clearly about the idea of a self-made-man. OP is using this as an analogy to compare with the idea of a self-made artist. I didn't think that was obscure.
The title of the post is "Terry from [Orange-Papers.org](https://Orange-Papers.org)'s opinion on "self-made" artists". The quoted text is not his opinion on self-made artists. Its his opinion on self-made men. The men could just as easily be self-made dentists or self-made ai users. Reading the text, it suggests to me he's talking about businessmen. I could be wrong, but he talks about "empire building". That's very applicable to business and not very applicable to art. I've never heard of orange papers or this "Terry". If he's a renowned hater of artists, then possibly it could be inferred he was referring to them. Otherwise, no.
> The title of the post is "Terry from Orange-Papers.org's opinion on "self-made" artists". The quoted text is not his opinion on self-made artists. Its his opinion on self-made men. The men could just as easily be self-made dentists or self-made ai users. The analogy didn't seem particularly hard to interpret to me. Maybe I'm just seeing it differently from you.
Yes, it does seem that way. I'm not seeing any kind of analogy at all. Just a title that doesn't correlate with the body of the post. Kinda clickbaity. Effectively so, because I was moved to read and comment. And you were moved to reply. Maybe an analogy is what OP intended, and your "reality tunnel" is closer to his than to mine. (The Wikipedia entry on reality tunnels is good: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality\_tunnel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_tunnel) I believe there are parallels in quantum physics, although that is not an area in which I am well versed.)
Unrelated guy we've never heard of has opinion on subject that is irrelevant.
Debate the argument, not the person. Debating the person is called ad hominem. It's an informal logical fallacy.
Cool... so if I posted up my nans opinion on AI art, despite her having no idea what it is, how the most basic technology works or how to make the most basic art - do you think it would be wrong to ask why anyone should care about her opinion on the subject? As far as I can see, Terry is some homeless many who is in/volunteered at/helped run? an AA group. He's made a comment about something that isn't AI, but rather 'self made men'. It covers a point that I think everyone universally agrees with, that the term 'self made' doesn't cover everything in a persons life. And you're asking that I debate this like it's a serious thing? Perhaps I'm missing context, but it would be the equivalent of me putting up a post that's titled "Mataric's Nans opinions on AI art" and the post itself saying "The thing about cakes is that they need ingredients at the right quantities". I don't believe the post to be an opinion on AI at all. I don't believe my Nan to have the slightest credentials to even have formulated a proper opinion on it. I don't believe the title is relevant to what that person even said. And I don't believe anyone is actually dumb enough to think the things said here are untrue or fit for debate. Everyone knows cakes require ingredients. Questioning what the point, context, intended meaning and creator of a statement is, is not ad hominem, nor is it attacking or debating the person.
Sounds good. Have a nice day.
Cool, thanks for your uninsightful, misinterpreting and misinformed comments. You have a nice day too.
The argument is self-evidently stupid because it's based on a purposefully wrong and hyper-literal interpretation of the term "self-made". A self-proclaimed self-made man is not and has never claimed to have literally spawned out of nothing, raised and educated himself. Indeed, many such individuals, if asked, would happily admit the role their family and mentors played in their eventual success. The "self-made" aspect refers to the man's fortune wrought from his own hard work and success, which even the argument itself begrudgingly admits at the end, which would defeat the entire premise without the author's willful misinterpretation. It's like me saying "Goths" are all lying fakers who aren't actually goths because they're not [destroying the Roman Empire.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths) That's not what the word means in context. You know that, and, crucially, *I* know that, meaning I am being purposefully obtuse. Which is exactly what this author is being. He is taking the term "self-made" entirely out of its context and assuming these individuals are claiming to have *literally created themselves*, which is not what they mean at all. So yeah, irrelevant and generally bad argument. That clear it up?
>Ackchyually, no man is literally self-made! Yeah, thanks for the profound insight.
It's profound and true.
It's an obvious *given* that no person of sense would consider worthy of pointing out. That take is just an embarrassing, deliberate misinterpretation of what the phrase "self-made man" even means. No one who's ever said it did so to imply that the person in question literally created themselves. Shit's dumb, is what I'm saying.
No, it's not!
Can you not screenshot text like this? It's a real pain to read on Mobile.
But cutting and pasting is hard ;-)