I'm reminded of an old talk by Rich Hickey [1] (he created Closure, initially in semi-isolation over some years).
> When was the last time that you thought about something for an
> entire hour? ... Howabout for a whole day? ... or over the course of a
> month? ... or a year? These are tremendously valuable moments, if you
> get to have them at all.
I like this article, but on some level I vehemently disagree with it?
The summary is this:
> A writer needs readers ... Any worthy pursuit needs a mat.
> ... Better to be pinned in public with courage than to train
> endlessly in private like a coward.
And then I think of various shut-in artists that I admire. Take, for example, Henry Darger[1]. He clearly did not seek public recognition; he never showed his work to anyone. But I find it beautiful and fascinating. He was dealing with various internal issues through his art, and I feel lucky to observe it, even long after his death.
If I produced art like Darger (or Van Gogh or Kafka or others who did not try to push their work into the public view), I would be happy with myself.
But, on the other hand, I do appreciate some aspect of this article's thesis.
"Putting yourself out there" does have value. This line from the article resonates with me:
> Yet the Cave, despite its darkness of solitude and dampness from
> sweat and suffer-porn, is comfortable. It lets us tinker with
> our own delusions.
There is a certain risk of complacency when you spend a long time in your own bubble.
Knowing that you'll be under the public eye does help dissolve that complacency, I find.
But it's not necessarily the solution. Some people get addicted to public recognition, and it twists their work for the worse.
Some people know they've done something good, put it out for people to see, but don't receive the recognition they wish they had, and get depressed. Nick Drake comes to mind.
I think it really comes down to your own personality and which of these traps you're prone to fall for. Once again, "know thyself" is the real nut worth cracking.
Yeah, I think the distinction is just the underlying purpose. If you are doing art for arts sake then just do your thing. (and there is nothing wrong with that) It may even be where you spend the majority of your time if you are lucky enough to do that.
But if you are labouring under the belief that your art has human value to others, you must put it out in the world, and often the sooner the better!
How far out into the world? Tolkien wrote The Hobbit for his kids, after dabbling in writing stories for the preceding 10 years or maybe longer, and he showed them to his friends sometimes, and a friend showed it to her friend who showed it to her boss, who published books, and this chain of events led to Tolkien having to write The Lord of the Rings. He wasn't exactly shielding his work from criticism, by writing for friends and family, but he wasn't throwing himself to the lions either, because why?
By "human value", do you actually mean "monetary value"?
Many of the most famous artists were unknown or unappreciated in their time, and if they'd asked the people around them whether their art had value we'd likely not have half of the Louvre.
This might be terminology that's used differently in different places.
For instance, in video games it is extremely common to use "postmortem" to mean "post-shipping."
Yes; I think what I described matches that meaning?
Post-death, as in: "it's over," "activity has halted," "no more work being done."
Death does not necessarily have a bad/negative connotation. It's just the end of something.
This is in contrast to the original comment: "something that went so wrong you had to kill it." Death does not imply something went wrong or that it happened forcefully.
I guess "autopsy" generally is talking about "finding the cause of death" so maybe that has a more negative connotation ("something (bad) happened, causing death, let's find it").
> But postmortem is literally “post death” in Latin.
Sure, that's true. It's not really relevant to people who don't speak Latin.
> It’s synonymous with autopsy!
This isn't true. I have no idea how you got here. In English an autopsy is a surgical procedure performed on a corpse for the purpose of identifying the cause of death. In particular, it's a noun. "Post-mortem" in the etymologically literal "after death" sense is an adverb or adjective identifying whatever it is as taking place chronologically after some contextually-specified death.
But, you seem to put some weight on the etymology of a word independently of its current meaning. In that case autopsy "literally means" to witness something personally, as opposed to hearing about it from someone else. (It's "self-eye" in Greek just as post mortem is "after death" in Latin.) Somehow I doubt that's what you had in mind...?
An autopsy is an exam that is performed postmortem. And that’s really how people are using postmortem as a noun for the analysis that they perform after the “death” of a company, so it is a synonym at least approximately, if you don’t see that I guess you don’t have a very good imagination.
Try and find me some sentences out there on the internet in which one of the words could be reasonably substituted for the other one.
They don't mean similar things and they aren't used similarly. A postmortem is, as you note in part, a report or a meeting for the purpose of producing or discussing such a report; an autopsy is a surgical procedure. They're as "synonymous" as the words "cigarette" and "cancer".
Languages change. That word "literally", which you just used, meant one thing for decades (centuries?) ... and now it also (literally) means the exact opposite.
You can be the crabby old guy complaining about how the youth ruined English ... or you can accept that languages aren't immutable, and that the meaning of postmortem is no longer it's literal meaning.
> Meaningful art is not mass-produced, generated content.
Andy Warhol might disagree [1] (:
(I realize that's not exactly apples-to-apples, but y'know.)
Or there's "art is anything you can get away with," which I just mention to point out that this kind of issue ("what is art?") is not new. In some ways it seems like a good thing to get people, like you, riled up about these topics, arguing the merits of their point of view. That's how culture happens.
It's an interesting question you tangle with: is it art because of what the artist did, or is it art because of how the viewer/listener/etc receives it? Some of both? How much of each? If you encountered some art but you didn't know its provenance, and it had some emotional impact on you, would it still be art if you found out later it was 100% AI generated?
Like you say, it's all subjective, but it's nice to see random people on the internet talking about the nature of art, since it's something I care about too.
So in other words, thank you for being angry (:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_Soup_Cans "... what Time magazine called the 'Slice of Cake School'—artists who treated the banal artifacts of contemporary civilization as legitimate subjects for high art"
That one took me back to high school art history. Agree, as much as I dislike AI generated art, it still is art. An Andy Warhol of today would could be making his screenprints using AI.
You really can't say, 'art should be this', 'art isn't that'. It's just art, it is what it is, people have a lot of emotions wrapped up in the art they like but it simply is what it is.
I don't think that example applies at all here. The quote you quoted itself said it - "subjects for high art". Theres a difference between treating the banalities of life as SUBJECTS for your art and making human, non-mass produced art from that ( like the paining you linked) vs just treating the soup cans themselves as art.
I agree it's not a perfect parallel. But it was very much part of a movement that challenged traditional notions of what art was, and spurned similar debates and outrage as here.
He might not actually. He could have just printed the cans, yet they’re all hand painted. The fact that he could mass produce them, but didn’t is part of story.
In these discussions, the concept of perceiving content gets intertwined with how content was made, because artists and creatives are usually more interested in how something was made.
So unless these two concepts are separated, people will endlessly talk past each other assuming both sides hold the same fundamental beliefs.
Claiming you made something by yourself, when in reality someone else made it (AI) is easy to frown upon.
I think if you can have a positive experience from looking at a sunset, hearing birds sing, etc, it should technically be possible to have a positive experience from the outputs of an AI without human input. This assumes art is clearly defined as needing to be made by a human with some effort, which neither a sunset or AI outputs are.
In practice, people who use AI to make content give it some direction. The amount of guidance varies wildly, and in practice the majority of what we see is minimal involvement.
But would you have an equally good experience listening to random beeps and chirps which aren't actually birds? Or from relaxing in the light of a big orange lamp?
It's not really about the artist. It's about the thing that's there. Which you experience, always imperfectly, through your senses. Other people are a wonderful thing that's there, but they aren't the only thing that's enjoyable. Usually the thing that's there which the artist wants you to experience, isn't merely the artist themselves.
Can you wonder at the miracles arising from matrix multiplication? Sure. Especially if it's a good artist trying to show you that miracle. I've enjoyed AI art from the start, but then it's the AI which is the point.
> the concept of perceiving content gets intertwined with how content was made
It reminds me also of the eternal "can we separate the art from the artist" debate, too. For instance, some people (myself included) find that their experience of some art that they previously enjoyed is soured when they learn that whoever made it is a Bad Person in some way. Neil Gaiman comes to mind as a recent example.
I think it goes beyond just creative people being more interested in the process behind the art. Even people who are more purely consumers care about where this thing that touches them came from. I think a person's experience of the art makes them feel closer to or entwined with that artist, even if they might be long-deceased. Or non-human?
Maybe we care about where something comes from, but we don't have the will to care about everything? (also, never meet your heroes comes to mind regarding the endless debate)
For example, I had never thought or cared where the trash can in my office came from. I forgot where I bought it from. Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm a little curious, but is it worth knowing? If I knew the designer of the trash can was a bad person, should I get get a new one and make sure the designer of that trash can is a good person?
I think logically and ethically yes, but I'm not willing to spend my time on this.
It's an extreme example, but I think the same applies to music, art, movies, etc, just to a lesser degree for people who claim they care more about the outcome than the human author.
Given that the man made his living doing stunts on top of the corpse of modernity, I'm not surprised he would love anti-human stuff like AI music. He famously said he wished he could be a machine. I don't think appealing to his nihilistic embrace of the spectacle is persuasive.
Depending on what you mean, this is currently not possible, and probably not ever possible, because as much as people like to call things "autonomous", these AIs are still ultimately being directed by humans to do things. Prompting an AI is on a different level of abstraction, like writing software in a HLL and using a compiler instead of keying in machine instructions on a hexpad, but IMHO it is still the work of a human.
Since you seem to know, and I am curious, doesn't CIE[1] effectively use RGB to describe its space, too? Eg: the r̅(λ) g̅(λ) b̅(λ) color matching functions? Or is there something else in CIE you're referring to?
I know someone who went to Reed College, which has semi-famously not suffered from grade inflation[1]. They send your transcripts out with an explanatory note, so that the recipient will not view the graduate poorly when they see the numbers.
Interestingly, at Reed, there is a low emphasis (or even anti-emphasis) on grades — a student has to go out of their way to obtain them. Instead, emphasis is on written feedback and discussion, to understand one's performance on assignments.
All this to say: de-emphasizing grades in school is not necessarily a bad thing, and does not necessarily harm the reputation of the university. It can be a sign of good priorities (eg: learning, rather than numbers-gaming).
> They send your transcripts out with an explanatory note, so that the recipient will not view the graduate poorly when they see the numbers.
That's odd, I would expect any employer for whom the class of degree mattered to know the reputation of the university. For instance second from Oxford is probably going to be as desirable as a first from Oxford Brooks (formerly Oxford Poly).
Everyone knows Oxford, but the are many thousands of universities, most of which are not known to most employers. I am not an employer, but I work in higher education and see transcripts of transferring and exchange students, and many (probably most) come with some kind of guide on how to interpret the grades, because there are a huge variety of ways of assigning them and defining them (e.g. at some universities a D is a fail, and at some a D is a pass - to know which you're looking at, you need a guide!).
I feel there is a balance to be struck between a project that is popular (where if you run into problems, you will get good support), and one that technically gives longer-term support (but if things go wrong, that support might not be very good).
I haven't used a lot of different distros, but for me, Debian has been a good balance of those factors. You may need to do more upgrades per decade, but the ones that you do are more liable to go smoothly.
It's a bit of an "if a tree falls in the forest but nobody hears it, does it make a sound?" quandary. Sure, maybe some aliens in a distant galaxy understand quantum mechanics better than we do. That's great, but it has no bearing on our little bubble of existence.
Though perhaps more to your point, if some superhuman AI is developed, and understands things better than us without telling us about it (or being unable to), it could perform feats that seem magical to us — that would concern us even if we don't understand it, since it affects us.
But I think in the frame of reference of the commenter you were replying to, they're just saying that the low-level AI used in this specific case is not capable of making its results actually useful to us; humans are still needed to make it human-relevant. It told us where to find a gem underground, but we still had to be the ones to dig it out, cut it, polish it, etc.
It's less likely that aliens of distant galaxies will appreciate this rather than, you know, AI themselves
We are in the birth of the AI age and we don't know how it will look like in 100 or 1000 or 10000 or 100000 years (all those time frames likely closer than possible encounters with aliens from distant galaxies). It's possible that AI will outlast humans even
reply