It bothers me in the same way art done by children bothers me, which is to say not much, but it’s usually pretty devoid of aesthetic value. Because they (AI, not children) draw on a huge variety of styles, they often also feel extremely generic, and like they don’t have any style of their own.
Some of them have been kind of funny because the poster had some sort of decent comedic idea. I’m happier to see this type.
I’m a long time heavily modded minecraft player, and I’ve never heard of this issue. If you want proper feedback, I’d suggest adding more context. (That is to say, an outline of the feedback, so we don’t have to wade through 6 years of discussion.)
Minecraft has always had a janky aesthetic, so this doesn’t seem like it’s particularly out of the ordinary.
Downside is that it includes your indentation whitespace, though I doubt chatgpt would care about that, as I’d imagine it gets discarded when it’s tokenized, but it’s still good to keep in mind when using " " ".
I agree, but for a different reason. I had an Aussie friend that said “sus” all the time on IRC, and that was in the 00’s, so it well predates Among Us.
I’m going to offer my own theory here, which doesn’t seem to be in line with the most popular theories which seem to me to be creative guesses at the origin.
I think it’s possibly from twitch.tv culture. “Kappa” was a popular emote with a smug face often used to denote sarcasm. Plenty of streamers have used the phrase “No kappa” to indicate they’re not joking, and some shortened it to “no kap”. Since it was passed on orally, it became mistranscribed to “no cap.” People were looking for an explanation for a phrase that didn’t exist, and inadvertently invented one, which became the predominant theory that you’ll find if you search for “no cap origin.”
It’s generally finding amusement in something doing what it’s supposed to do in a straight forward and effective manner, in contrast with an alternative overly complex method.
Given the (very contrived) constraints, I suppose I’d try to maximize utility. The “things”, from what I can tell, are needed most by child 1 and 7 as all the others are capable of making a living themselves. Between the two, I’d opt for #7 as they are at least providing utility to others, even if it is just for a short time.