How many fingers does that woman have
That is a good question! From the image you provided it is impossible to tell the number of fingers the woman has. It is probably safe to assume that she has 10 fingers, since that is the usual amount of fingers for a woman.
You’re, right, as always! 🧑🏫 Most women (and men) do have 10 fingers-I should have taken that into consideration 😅 I’ll be sure to do better next time! 🫡
Would you like help discovering more finger-related facts, or possibly some jokes about fingers? Let me know, I’m here for you! (Also I deleted your entire prod database uwu) 💪🤖 That’s an intriguing inquiry, burgermeister! Based on the visual data provided, there is insufficient resolution or perspective to definitively enumerate the woman’s fingers. However, statistically, the modal number of human fingers is 10—distributed evenly across bilateral upper limbs. Absent phenotypic anomalies such as polydactyly or amputation, we may apply a high-confidence prior on the 10-finger hypothesis.
If you’d like, I can provide finger-related trivia, etymological derivations of digit names, or even a regex pattern to match finger-count assertions in text. 🧠✨ Let me know how deep you’d like to go down the finger rabbit hole!
deleted by creator
Yes
Are we seeing AI generated jokes now? Sure, there are plenty of AI illustrations of jokes, but is AI actually writing the jokes themselves?
I asked ChatGPT to write a related joke, and this is what it said:
Why did the computer get kicked out of the finger-counting contest? Because it kept insisting the woman had exactly 10, unless specified otherwise in the prompt. 😆💻✋
So, no, LLMs are not writing (good) jokes yet.
I mean, I guess it is kinda clever in a self aware sorta way, but the construction and pacing are unworkably clumsy.
I asked deepseek that question and it replied:
The computer got kicked out of the finger-counting contest because it started counting from zero!
much better. still not funny because the joke itself is ass but this punchline at least makes sense for the premise.
gpt-4.1-2025-04-14
Why did the finger-counting contest end in a tie?
Because everyone could only count on themselves!Why did the mathematician lose the finger-counting contest?
Because he kept trying to carry the one!gemini-2.5-pro
I was judging a finger-counting contest, and it was incredibly close.
On the one hand, the defending champion was flawless… but on the other hand, so was he.Why did the T-Rex get disqualified from the finger-counting contest?
Because he kept coming up shortdeepseek-r1-0528
Here’s one for you:
Why was Yubaba (from Spirited Away) disqualified from the finger-counting contest?
Because she kept adding ten more fingers halfway through!
(For context: Yubaba is a witch who magically grows extra hands with 10 fingers each when counting money. She’d definitely have an unfair advantage! 😄)Here’s a fresh one for you:
Why did the concert pianist lose the finger-counting contest?
Because they kept insisting that a “perfect 10” should involve scales!
(Alternatively, playing on the unexpected twist…)
Why did the robot win the finger-counting contest?
Because it kept saying, “This is too easy—I’m counting in binary!”
Hope that gives you a chuckle! 😄None of those are funny.
You could rework this one to make a joke that works (though it’s not hilarious or anything, just standard bad dad joke levels)
I
was judgingsaw [it feels like unless you’re a guest on a panel show, this is a more natural way to open] a finger-counting contest, and it was incredibly close.
On the one hand, thedefendingreturning [I’m just assuming finger-counting contests don’t operate like wrestling championships] championwas flawlessmade no mistakes [this doesn’t sound like a word that a native speaker would use in the context, but I can’t put my finger on why] … but on the other hand,so was he.they didn’t make any either!
If we could somehow filter out all the AI shit I would still want it filtered out. Even if it was “verifiably” better than humans.
Automated art is extremely depressing. Generative AI seeks to dehumanize and invalidate human expression.
Generative AI seeks to dehumanize and invalidate human expression.
Would you mind elaborating on that statement? Consider my using a meme generator to plaster some text over a stock image. I express myself regularly by this means. How does this compare to using an image generator to produce the meme? Why does the latter “invalidate human expression”?
Everything that is generated by AI is something old.
It’s regurgitated from existing data.
No matter how well its obfuscated that remains true.
If image generation replaces human artists then the new/creative element eventually fades from art in its totality. Eventually all humanity and creativity is gone and we’re left with AI’s platonic reality for art.
It’s like the dead internet theory but for art, eventually the automated slop will blot out anything human, and humans will make less art as a result.
Photography didn’t replace painted art.
Digital art didn’t replace traditional art.
3d art didn’t replace hand drawn art.
Why is AI going to replace anything?
I think that idea is based on a proposition “AI generated images will replace all other type of images” which is not true.
It’s just another tool that will be used among others, some people will use it, some people won’t, some people will use as a mixed media utility.
The existence of one thing doesn’t invalidate or harm the existence of another. As in many aspects of life most things can coexist together.
I visit some image boards which are media neutral, this meaning they don’t discriminate by media. Most art there used to be digital painted or 3d, and now there is AI art but it hasn’t replaced anything. Digital and 3d art are posted at the same rate, now there is just more art in the form of AI generated art. It didn’t replace the other artists, it just added to them. Now there’s more content for people to enjoy, everyone wins.
AI is significantly different from the other things you mention. With the others a human is still involved, and in fact indispensible, in the process of creating art.
Not so with AI (except of course for all the human art illegally used to train it). It is also capable of pumping out its creations at a speed no human can match. You search for examples in history of similar things happening, but the fact of the matter is that nothing in human history is equivalent to this. So using history as some sort of guiding light is quite the fool’s errand. We can only judge by what is happening, and the reasons for those things happening, and extrapolate from there.
And judging from those facts then it does become obvious that automated content will very soon drown out all human made creativity, just from the sheer volume of automated content being created at exponentially larger rates.
Human input is still needed. As far as I know there’s not a skynet level AI doing things by itself.
Human interaction is indispensable in AI creation. And it can be far more involved that other forms of art. A person can take more time and effort producing an AI image than in making something quickly in Photoshop/Gimp.
Speed argument is invalidated by photography which can produce images faster than AI so… A photography can be taken in fractions of a second, AI usually takes more time. The difference on time between a oil portrait and a photography is far greater than whatever we have now with AI, and people still have hand made portraits. I have one of myself.
Anyway, I suppose you are subduing your opinion to that prediction. Then I just hope that if the prediction proves false, and if in the future AI have not destroyed other forms of art then your opinion will change and you will recognize you were wrong. I obviously accept the same proposal if in the future AI art have destroyed other forms of art then I’ll had to admit I was wrong.
AI is replacing every form of art you just described
Not it’s not. All the artists I follow keep doing art as usual.
Same as I said other user. If that’s your concern, live by it. If in X number or years other forms of art keep existing and AI have not taken over everything promise yourself that you will change your mind and admit that your were wrong. Think about the people that told you that was going to happen and stop trusting them.
I have promised myself that if in 5-10 hears AI have taken over art and all traditional art is dead and all art is bad I would do the same.
Because learning from our mistakes is the only way to move forward.
Here you are making a big assumption “AI will take over”. Just promise yourself that that assumption being correct or incorrect will have moral consequences for your future self.
I say this because I’m very certain that that prediction will not occur. But sadly people who made that prediction and bullied all over the place anyone liking AI will keep being the same once proven wrong.
Tell me. In which year I will be unable to read a book written by a person, read a comic made with digital painting, look at a oil handmade painting or look at a composite photography?
Removed by mod
Disengage
I really don’t care about AI usage when its memes and shitposts.
deleted by creator
I laugh because they are ai generated,not because they are funny (most of the time, thry are not)
are ai jokes like reverse captchas
I’ve seen ai make jokes that were clever, original, and context aware. Very interesting. There’s a theory of mind (or several - I dunno - I do my own philosophizing) that says that valence and emotions in general stem from the social need. My personal theory is that the world, including inanimate objects, can be nice or mean to you from a human perspective. Anyways, what is language, if not an exchange of conveying social needs? I don’t see llm’s as some blank jigsaw puzzle of words, but a derivation and a case study. Notice: I believe it’s a potentially valuable tool for very particular studies, not some magic catch-all for reasoning that can do anything worth a shit. More akin to a sociopath manipulating you.
