Not necessarily, this only implies that computers are a part of a set of things that can be neither spiteful nor horny, and things that can be neither spiteful nor horny must never make art, not that all things that can be neither spiteful nor horny are computers.
12 Comments
jellyfishhunter@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 160d
Oh, I know some very spiteful computers
zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev · 6 pts · 160d
AM?
nymnympseudonym@piefed.social · 10 pts · 160d
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz · 11 pts · 160d
It's not art, it's a fleshlight.
nymnympseudonym@piefed.social · 1 pts · 160d
Conversely, if it's a fleshlight, then by definition it is art
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 159d
honestly, nm scale anything is so teensy it's art to me.
roofuskit@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 160d
Can* never
tja@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 160d
No. Since this is based on something else, it follows the argumentation of the original.
hansolo@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 160d
Yeah, well I upvoted this when it said 69 upvotes, and I feel proud of that.
JoShmoe@ani.social · 3 pts · 160d
Pattern recognition based spite and libido sounds like things someone would have already attempted.
Kojichan@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 159d
Guess I'm a computer. shrugs
SleveMcDichael@programming.dev · 3 pts · 159d
Not necessarily, this only implies that computers are a part of a set of things that can be neither spiteful nor horny, and things that can be neither spiteful nor horny must never make art, not that all things that can be neither spiteful nor horny are computers.