Illustration of their founders.
The real answer is because it’s a really easy unimaginative design. We basically have to be lucky that they didn’t try and change one of their letters into the logo I’ll put a giant X at the start and a Z at the end, but maybe that’s too 1990s.
XAI★ZZ2000
Welcome to the toilet bowl. Enjoy the view
Full of shit, made by assholes, produces diarrhea.
It’s because they all imagine themselves as the center of everything.
because you’re in middle school?
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Would be proud.
You’ve heard of nominative determinism, well now we’ve got iconographic determinism!
The Walmart logo is one of those. I think you may be onto something here!
Because they constantly spew bullshit?
The amount of updates confirms this was more than likely everyone’s first thought
Simple.
During sex, the butthole is either visible, in the near vicinity or the active target of stimulation.
Basically the only times you generally actually see a butthole (in general people) is when your genitals are swollen.
So see butthole, remember sexy times unconsciously.
Or not. But it sounds like something that would come out of a marketing department.
This reads like an alien trying to explain why humans like buttholes.
You just moved up the probing list
Hot.
Because a dick is too obvious:
Technically anus translates from Latin to old people so “from many old people” is still accurate
Shouldn’t it be “anum”?
(I think that was the joke)
Because that’s who runs them. A butthole.
And because it perfectly illustrates what value AI brings. Because the only thing that comes from it is shit.
I agree, but you can also fart from a butthole (which is funny) & some people have sex with them.
Nobody is fucking Sam and co. & they are not funny.
In capitalist US, butthole fucks you!
Yakov? Damn you still owe me for all those nights in Branson, Missouri!!!
There should be a product which removes AI from programs. It’s logo could be toilet paper, because it wipes away the shit.
Seems like the community most likely to build tools like that would pot for something more plug shaped.
Mind of the beholder?
I’m reminded of a college Art History prof who thought every ancient image or object that was round represented Mother Earth, and anything long was phallic. Nevermind that these were the same people who figured out agriculture, medicine, fermentation, engineering, laws… [all the things the Romans did for us besides Nothing]… but somehow they were only capable of two artistic concepts.
This is basically what I was saying. What the hell. I find people claiming every cylinder in art to be a dick insufferable too.
I see a lot of “hmmm…” images where the poster seems to think part of the image reminding them of a dick or whatever is a universal human brain function. Generally I chalk those up to middle schoolers who probably also wonder if putting mirrors on shoes to see girls’ panties really works.
I cannot stand people like that professor, like anytime there’s 3 of something it must be because the artist is deeply Christian and trying to evoke the holy trinity.
Or maybe they bought a four pack of apples or bananas and ate one before doing the still life! Not everything has to have some deep meaning, sometimes people just paint shit Mrs. Foxtrot!
Triple symbolism is practically everywhere both before and after the rise of Christianity. The most notable example I can think of is the Valknut from Norse culture.
It’s almost like the Christians assimilated the culture of the preceding civilisations
That ain’t really a direct issue with Christianity though their synchrotism game is fucken solid. Every culture does this either with their ancestor culture or with interacted cultures usually both. The stupidity isn’t saying that certain symbols are associated with X, Y, or Z but with having the buck stop with said association. The triple symbolism goes back to the Neolithic in Europe and given how common wood tools seem to have been id hazard a guess there may have been even older examples somewhere that were simply lost due to being made of more perishable materials.
Yes agreed, there will always be voluntary, or involuntary, sharing of ideas, and respectfully, I think you intended “syncretism” as I had to look that up. Which defines the idea of cultural blending.
I did mean syncretism, I was just tired and mangled the word in my attempt to get autocorrect to stop trying to force it into saying synthetic so I just mangled it into how I say it phonetically.
