|
|
Post by Orac on May 18, 2024 7:45:55 GMT
Sargon does a good job here. By a 'good job', i mean he doesn't waste our time rambling
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 18, 2024 11:22:21 GMT
Sargon does a good job here. By a 'good job', i mean he doesn't waste our time rambling Interesting. Marx continues to be relevant, then. This seems very like his theory of alienation. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 18, 2024 11:31:02 GMT
Sargon does a good job here. By a 'good job', i mean he doesn't waste our time rambling Interesting. Marx continues to be relevant, then. This seems very like his theory of alienation. I think they are related only by the concept of alienation. IMHO Marx's alienation of labour should have been called the 'alienation of a transaction'. The part that you are providing in a transaction is of no interest to you - it's of interest to the other person..Who the transaction happens with is of no interest to either party. However, with art it's arguable that the point of transaction is itself (kind of). There is no ulterior objective outside it. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 18, 2024 11:36:49 GMT
Interesting. Marx continues to be relevant, then. This seems very like his theory of alienation. I think they are related only by the concept of alienation. IMHO Marx's alienation of labour should have been called the 'alienation of a transaction'. The part that you are providing in a transaction is of no interest to you - it's of interest to the other person..Who the transaction happens with is of no interest to either party. However, with art it's arguable that the point of transaction is itself (kind of). There is no ulterior objective outside it. Ah, I was thinking of Marx's theory in its simplest form; that is, that human happiness is derived largely, but not exclusively, from creation. Anything that subtracts from that experience is a negative. Thus, being relegated to a mere part of the process of creation (as happens on an assembly line) or being excluded entirely (as with current AI) are negatives. The message in your link seems a narrower version of what Marx said. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 18, 2024 11:53:47 GMT
I think they are related only by the concept of alienation. IMHO Marx's alienation of labour should have been called the 'alienation of a transaction'. The part that you are providing in a transaction is of no interest to you - it's of interest to the other person..Who the transaction happens with is of no interest to either party. However, with art it's arguable that the point of transaction is itself (kind of). There is no ulterior objective outside it. Ah, I was thinking of Marx's theory in its simplest form; that is, that human happiness is derived largely, but not exclusively, from creation. Anything that subtracts from that experience is a negative. Thus, being relegated to a mere part of the process of creation (as happens on a production line) or being excluded entirely (as with current AI) are negatives. This looks confused to me - human happiness is moot issue if you don't have enough food or you die of exposure. To remove these risks you are quite likely to end up engaging in activities that themselves do not interest you - but might be of interest to others (ie a transaction in which both sides have ulterior motives for their behaviour). There is no feasible way everyone can just do what they feel like doing and get fed and be secure. Art itself is another matter though,. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 18, 2024 12:21:31 GMT
Ah, I was thinking of Marx's theory in its simplest form; that is, that human happiness is derived largely, but not exclusively, from creation. Anything that subtracts from that experience is a negative. Thus, being relegated to a mere part of the process of creation (as happens on a production line) or being excluded entirely (as with current AI) are negatives. This looks confused to me - human happiness is moot issue if you don't have enough food or you die of exposure. To remove these risks you are quite likely to end up engaging in activities that themselves do not interest you - but might be of interest to others (ie a transaction in which both sides have ulterior motives for their behaviour). There is no feasible way everyone can just do what they feel like doing and get fed and be secure. Art itself is another matter though,. Perhaps, it is 'confused' if taken to the extreme. I imagine that Marx meant that the assembly line process of creation was itself taking things to an extreme, though. Art is another matter. Andy Warhol's 'art' was mostly about this topic. 'His' works were assembly line creations. Often, he had no input into one of 'his' works other than his signature. I'm not quite sure yet what the significance of 'his' work is in this context, but Warhol and the narrator in your link seem to have the same starting point, even if they reach very different conclusions. |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on May 18, 2024 18:53:35 GMT
Sargon does a good job here. By a 'good job', i mean he doesn't waste our time rambling My initial reaction was to agree with his argument, but I'm not sure if that was more emotional than reasoned.
I wonder, perhaps, if I wasn't engaged in a mild form of luddism. Might it not be a good thing if great pieces of art could be churned out for the consumption/admiration of everyone. New film comedies or dramas churned out and perfectly acted at a fraction of the cost. The same with new or existing musical compositions and 'live' performances with AI generated differences from the standard version.
Would it, I wonder, see the end of human endeavour in the arts or encourage competition and drive human standards higher?
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 18, 2024 18:58:47 GMT
Sargon does a good job here. By a 'good job', i mean he doesn't waste our time rambling My initial reaction was to agree with his argument, but I'm not sure if that was more emotional than reasoned.
I wonder, perhaps, if I wasn't engaged in a mild form of luddism. Might it not be a good thing if great pieces of art could be churned out for the consumption/admiration of everyone. New film comedies or dramas churned out and perfectly acted at a fraction of the cost. The same with new or existing musical compositions and 'live' performances with AI generated differences from the standard version.
Would it, I wonder, see the end of human endeavour in the arts or encourage competition and drive human standards higher?
As I mentioned, it doesn't appear to matter who or what creates art. 'Artworks' have only to be linked to an 'artist'. Warhol set out to prove that with his lithographs. All you need do is attach a personality, a famous individual, to the work in some not even very direct way, and the public will accept it as art. Whether it's great art is another matter. But, then, what is great art? |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on May 18, 2024 19:15:07 GMT
My initial reaction was to agree with his argument, but I'm not sure if that was more emotional than reasoned.
I wonder, perhaps, if I wasn't engaged in a mild form of luddism. Might it not be a good thing if great pieces of art could be churned out for the consumption/admiration of everyone. New film comedies or dramas churned out and perfectly acted at a fraction of the cost. The same with new or existing musical compositions and 'live' performances with AI generated differences from the standard version.
Would it, I wonder, see the end of human endeavour in the arts or encourage competition and drive human standards higher?
As I mentioned, it doesn't appear to matter who or what creates art. 'Artworks' have only to be linked to an 'artist'. Warhol set out to prove that with his lithographs. All you need do is attach a personality, a famous individual, to the work in some not even very direct way, and the public will accept it as art. Whether it's great art is another matter. But, then, what is great art? I'm sure people, far cleverer than I am, have made attempts to answer that question. I'll not make an attempt. I don't suppose, say, Munch or Lowry would be considered great artists, but I'd guess their output is probably considered great art. I'd guess Warhol is more a fashion.
Whatever the consumer's taste, might it not be a good thing for AI to be churning out art in one or any of these styles cheaply available to all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 18, 2024 19:22:13 GMT
As I mentioned, it doesn't appear to matter who or what creates art. 'Artworks' have only to be linked to an 'artist'. Warhol set out to prove that with his lithographs. All you need do is attach a personality, a famous individual, to the work in some not even very direct way, and the public will accept it as art. Whether it's great art is another matter. But, then, what is great art? I'm sure people, far cleverer than I am, have made attempts to answer that question. I'll not make an attempt. I don't suppose, say, Munch or Lowry would be considered great artists, but I'd guess their output is probably considered great art. I'd guess Warhol is more a fashion.
Whatever the consumer's taste, might it not be a good thing for AI to be churning out art in one or any of these styles cheaply available to all.
Maybe, it would be a good thing for AI to churn out art. I really don't know. I don't think high art is particularly relevant to most people. I suppose that AI will succeed at 'art' if it can strike an emotional chord. I don't see why it shouldn't. I'm not sure that the negative reaction to the advertisement in the link was down to any sort of luddism. I imagine that, for most people, it was just sort of violent. The smiley emoji being squashed wasn't a happy sight. |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on May 18, 2024 19:28:17 GMT
I'm sure people, far cleverer than I am, have made attempts to answer that question. I'll not make an attempt. I don't suppose, say, Munch or Lowry would be considered great artists, but I'd guess their output is probably considered great art. I'd guess Warhol is more a fashion.
Whatever the consumer's taste, might it not be a good thing for AI to be churning out art in one or any of these styles cheaply available to all.
Maybe, it would be a good thing for AI to churn out art. I really don't know. I don't think high art is particularly relevant to most people. I suppose that AI will succeed at 'art' if it can strike an emotional chord. I don't see why it shouldn't. I'm not sure that the negative reaction to the advertisement in the link was down to any sort of luddism. I imagine that, for most people, it was just sort of violent. The smiley emoji being squashed wasn't a happy sight. Perhaps.
Incidentally, I had a quick look at some of the criticisms. I found it amusing to see Hugh Grant joining the throng - he can't act beyond being Hugh Grant and has an extremely valuable art collection!
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 18, 2024 19:30:44 GMT
Maybe, it would be a good thing for AI to churn out art. I really don't know. I don't think high art is particularly relevant to most people. I suppose that AI will succeed at 'art' if it can strike an emotional chord. I don't see why it shouldn't. I'm not sure that the negative reaction to the advertisement in the link was down to any sort of luddism. I imagine that, for most people, it was just sort of violent. The smiley emoji being squashed wasn't a happy sight. Perhaps.
Incidentally, I had a quick look at some of the criticisms. I found it amusing to see Hugh Grant joining the throng - he can't act beyond being Hugh Grant and has an extremely valuable art collection!
That's funny about Hugh Grant. What was his objection? |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on May 18, 2024 19:35:34 GMT
Perhaps.
Incidentally, I had a quick look at some of the criticisms. I found it amusing to see Hugh Grant joining the throng - he can't act beyond being Hugh Grant and has an extremely valuable art collection!
That's funny about Hugh Grant. What was his objection? "the destruction of the human experience, courtesy of Silicon Valley"
I suggest the Grant bank balance should be substituted for the human experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 18, 2024 19:42:53 GMT
That's funny about Hugh Grant. What was his objection? "the destruction of the human experience, courtesy of Silicon Valley"
I suggest the Grant bank balance should be substituted for the human experience.
LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 19, 2024 8:16:23 GMT
Sargon does a good job here. By a 'good job', i mean he doesn't waste our time rambling My initial reaction was to agree with his argument, but I'm not sure if that was more emotional than reasoned.
I wonder, perhaps, if I wasn't engaged in a mild form of luddism. Might it not be a good thing if great pieces of art could be churned out for the consumption/admiration of everyone. New film comedies or dramas churned out and perfectly acted at a fraction of the cost. The same with new or existing musical compositions and 'live' performances with AI generated differences from the standard version.
Would it, I wonder, see the end of human endeavour in the arts or encourage competition and drive human standards higher?
Very good. Thanks ..and why not? No man would ever want for a drama of a particular type, in a particular setting and featuring particular actors, ever again. Would it drive competition or destroy the endeavor? I think the latter, by training expectation. I can imagine a human mind faced with the ability to sit through any permutation, becoming uninterested in all permutations. The social death of imagination? Imagination has always had value to humans because of what it can cause and those with the ability to pull the not yet seen into compelling focus can command status and resources. Without the feedback, imagination will have no use and became vestigial. You might scoff at the notion now, but you were raised in a society in that still valued imagination. You (we) are going to be the last such generation. Children raised with these choices presented to them sans human involvement are going to see no use. In two generations, it will be unclear what imagination even is. Here is something else i wish to illustrate - and i'm going to shamelessly use the most extreme scenario possible to illustrate my point. In the future virtual / remote presence type technologies are likely to be the chief ways humans interact. I can see a world in which you will not talk to (say) your boss, but your boss's 'AI assistant' and similarly, he will not talk to you, but to your AI assistant. So far so good? People will use these technologies to bolster their social ability - those who do not will be at a 'popularity disadvantage'. So, when your mother is dying, why not get the AI to do the heavy lifting of making her feel better as she passes? I watch a lot of YouTube videos by professor Sam Vankin. He has narcissistic personality disorder and he makes videos about the nature of the disorder and shares informed theories about it. One of the concepts he employs in his description of the disorder is that the narcissist has no core person within them - that there is nothing but a facade. |
|
