Inventing that parasocial relation to a JPEG, at first sight, is nuts. Insisting you didn't experience that rush of wonder when you had no further context is a lie.
To say it's less interesting, fine, sure, people don't like the robot that draws anything you can describe. But people reach for extremes in a way that goes beyond subjectivity, and beyond irrationality, to the point it's contrarian. Like a teenager tearing posters off their wall and insisting they never liked their favorite band.
Personally? I've loved some albums that it turns out were made by fascist bigots. They're never getting another cent from me, and I'm less bothered that several of them got shot, but I'm not gonna pretend the music was bad now. If an artist's suffering and misery are what excites you about a painting of a flower, maybe the fact three people died onstage is a bonus.
I shouldn't have to convince you of anything - YOU SAID you found this interesting. Then you learned you were impressed by a program, and want to pretend that didn't happen.
You said you found it interesting. You can't make that reaction un-happen. You can only glumly attempt to reclassify it, because this was a machine fantasy, rather than a human one.
Surely you wouldn't insist it was a disappointment if it was merely photoshopped or rendered. But because it passed through an autoencoder instead of an image editor, well, that's fundamentally different... somehow.
You experienced fascination, but then found it was Wrong, and have to pretend you did not experience that emotional reaction to a visual medium. Like it'd be any fucking different if it was a real place you'd never visit or see depicted again.
And the sci-fi cliche is to have enormous moons filling the sky, but realistically, ours is comically large. Even planets in our solar system mostly see moons the way we see those planets. You get a dot.
We can see the Acrobat window in those scans you found online.
You think 2(8)2 is 128 if that's simplified from 2(8+0)2... but 256 if it's simplified from 2(8*1)2. In short: no.
I think you're about fifteen years old. You had an unpleasant teacher who belittled you, and you've identified with the aggressor. Your whole online persona is posturing to always be smarterer than everybody else, even if that means saying Wolfram fucking Alpha is wrong about basic algebra.
Faced with a contradiction that requires you to insist (8*1) ≠ (8+0), you're going to type laughter and spam emojis as if that inspires any reaction besides pity. The word you should be looking for is, "oops."
Given that everyone's first assumption is that it's about the US Supreme Court, obviously no. You have to meet people where they are.
Even for domestic US news, the same shit happens for state versus federal governments. Sometimes on websites that namedrop cities and politicians but don't bother mentioning what fucking state they're in.
Go ahead and tell me how you would explain what 3(x+y) means without referring to Multiplication?
Your own spammed screenshots say 3 gets multiplied.
There is no special case. You made it up. 8+0 equals 8 (or sorry, does it just mean 8?) so 2(8+0)2 is the same as 2(8)2. The latter is the next step in simplifying the former. You've admitted simplifying first is valid, when your nose was rubbed in your own found PDFs doing exactly that.
You don't have an opinion. You make no claim, anymore. All you have left are derision and emojis. You've admitted 2(81)2 means 2(8)(8), and insist that's different from 2(8)2 because... ibid. You cannot explain it even now.
"Management pushing contradictory narratives as it suits them, while doing nothing to monitor actual work, which they know very little about. Just a priesthood of MBAs chanting catechisms invented out of thin air to justify their laziness."
And getting downright meta, Hail, Caesar!