OK. I have two questions for the original poster and the community, who support him:

1. Why do you evaluate images, texts, and code not just based on their final quality or whether they meet their intended goals, but also based on the process used to create them?

2. If a clan leader believes they need an image for promotional purposes, what alternatives to AI are you rooting for? What methods or tools do you believe are more effective?

Edited 2026-02-08 19:17:36

Passion and AI in the same sentence?

Passion and AI in the same sentence?

Passion to create something awesome for Warzone.

For the record, let me introduce myself to the young guys. I am Norman, the creator of the most competitive Warzone Bot called "Wunderwaffe" which I helped Fizzer to integrate over 10 years ago into the site. Paying members can use that bot. I developed that bot while studying IT at university. In the meantime I have been working as a developer. I have also worked a couple of years for the German state on critical German IT infrastructure (KRITIS). So I do not claim to be a top expert in any field but I have at least worked closely together with and reported to top tier security experts.

Modern day AI tools are good. They are damn good. I use the ChatGPT Pro plan for unlimited Codex usage. For over 10 years I have hoped that someone would finally pose a challenge to Wunderwaffe. Some have tried but everyone has given up after realizing that it is tough. I hope now that there are top tier AI agents out there someone will go for my throne and I will have a reason to fight back.

Edited 2026-02-08 20:00:24

to FiveSmith:
1. I believe that art is apart of the human experience and human emotions and a machine can't replicate that
2. Art contest for the clan, Commission an artist, or learn skills for art (free softwares i use being paint.net, krita, and inkscape)

I wrote a lot more here about 10 minutes ago but my phone died and lost all the text i had written out so heres a simplified version


Edited 2026-02-08 20:16:40

1. Why do you evaluate images, texts, and code not just based on their final quality or whether they meet their intended goals, but also based on the process used to create them?

The lack of ethics. You should ask for consent to copy and follow the author's terms. It's disrespectful to the original author if you go against them. As individuals, you're not allowed to infringe on anyone's rights, but AI companies seem to get away with it. It's like instead of asking to make tea, you make tea and force it down someone's mouth.

2. If a clan leader believes they need an image for promotional purposes, what alternatives to AI are you rooting for? What methods or tools do you believe are more effective?

Traditional methods. Ask for someone else to draw it or draw it yourself using a program like pen and paper, Inkscape, Krita, GIMP, etc.

Generative AI is an economic bubble about to burst. It's a circle-jerk of a handful of tech companies funding each other to get the dumbest people on the planet, Investors, to pour all their money into a hot potato that will not ramp down it's costs, will not be profitable, and will never ever be nearly as useful as the charlatans make it out to be all while the rest of the economy tanks. And that isn't even touching the environmental and theft issues that would curb-stomp these fools from even getting their first round of funding in a sane world. Only a moron would still be "a believer" in ai at this point and I genuinely mean that. If you are anything but skeptical of generative ai than you are cattle and deserve to be taken for the ride you're on. I am not going to 'debate' anyone on this matter. You know you're a rube if you want to try. Wake up.

They're so far into it that they don't care. They have to keep on investing. It's their only way out.

I'm open to the idea, but not like this. Consumer demand should reflect if it's a good use of inflated prices for regular computing parts. Consent and keeping to licensing terms above all else imo.

@AbsolutelyEthan:

to get the dumbest people on the planet, Investors, to pour all their money

You mean the people who put their money where their mouth is.

I am not going to 'debate' anyone on this matter.

Translation: You have already made up your mind and are not willing to look at the facts.


Anyhow, you are conflating multiple layers here. Whether generative AI is a good investment is a different question than the capability of generative AI. Given that the open source models people can run at a cost of basically 0 on their own PC currently lag only maybe 1 year behind the frontier models, I see a valid case for frontier AI labs not being a good economic investment. But the IMO at least plausible future scenario that everyone just installs the AI on their own PC has absolutely 0 to do with generative AI just puff, going away and everyone just realiced that it was a big nothingburger. The chance I see for this to happen is 0. Generative AI is currently in the process of upending entire business models. It is not a vague promise to deliver some undefined future value but it is delivering value as we speak. Personally I pay almost 300 dollars each month to my AI providers and this is not because it might or might not be helpful to me at some future point in time but because I get the value right now out of it.

Edited 2026-02-10 08:17:20

There is a strange disconnect between uninformed people, even those who speak publicly e.g. on YouTube and actual industry professionals. There is some misinformed common understanding going on that 2025 the AI models did not really improve. However 2025 was a year of extremely rapid AI breakthroughs. The reason some people can not see this is because they use AI just as some Google replacement. And yes, if you just use AI to ask that 1+1=2, then the new AI models won't answer differently.

2025 have brought with it the thinking models which work surprisingly well. Now in 2026 also tool usage works very good already. Mind you that what seems like minor improvements on paper have huge implications for actual usage. The reason is that e.g. a use case you have consists of let's say 10 steps the AI needs to take. If each step has a 90% chance of being sucesfull, then overall the whole chain only has a 35% chance of working out. But if you increase it to 95%, then the chain has a 60% success chance.

Now in 2026 the best AI models are able to iterate over their own output which did not really work earlier in 2025. So they build something, test it and if the tests fails, they adapt until it all works as designed. Especially in fields which have a clear success criteria, like most parts of programming, they absolutely shine already, outpacing even the very best humans in the field.

Edited 2026-02-10 10:52:26

I'd like to add something to this discussion, stating that I'm not an AI expert. My current studies and future work are in healthcare, which is a very fertile ground for the application of generative models capable of completing diagnostic reasoning and, later in the future, therapeutic planning with accuracy and precision comparable to a human physician. In fact, I think models trained for this purpose may already be superior, though I admit I'm not familiar with the literature on the subject. Having simultaneous access to the entire epidemiology, diagnostic criteria, and all symptoms and signs, even the rarest ones, of all diseases, plus potential intoxications and drug interactions, is a real advantage over a human's capabilities. Plus, it's always up-to-date with the latest evidence and clinical guidelines!
Jeff Bezos said that even if the bubble burst because it wasn't financially sustainable, technological advances would still be lasting and revolutionary, and this seems undeniable.
AI is neutral; it has enormous potential to do both good and bad, in the end it is up to the people in power to decide how to use it and how to regulate it. We don't have much options but to embrace these changes, and we can try to do our part where it's possible.

@Fede: Thanks, good points. I have no knowledge about medicine myself but have heard some talks about the usage of AI in medicine. Here is some Gemini AI reference:


Mammography
AI: Can detect micro-calcifications years before they become a visible tumor.
Humans: Often limited to spotting established lesions.

Retinal Scans
AI: Can predict heart disease and early Alzheimers just by looking at blood vessels in the eye.
Humans: Mostly used by humans to check for local eye issues like glaucoma.

Dermatology
AI: Can compare a mole against a database of millions of confirmed skin cancers in seconds.
Humans: Reliant on visual memory and the "ABCD" rule of thumb.

Now I already know the uninformed response that this is entirely different AI. However it is not. The same AI which produces the "AI slop" and is a "nothingburger only the dumbest investors fall for" is the AI which outperforms doctors and is bound to save lifes.

You can have all the benefits that AI promises without doing it in a way that actively attacks creative communities and essentially DDOSing websites.

AI takes peoples' work without consent, credit or compensation then replicates it and monetises off of it.

Everyone highly in favour of generative AI and LLMs seems to ignore that.

It's irresponsible and disrespectful.