This is fundamentally different, though. I remember when some reactionaries thought digital instruments somehow invalidated the work. But Daft Punk were still people. They took human ideas and transformed them into reality, creating something new. Buttons and knobs can be instruments in the hands of an artist. With AI, it is the plagiarism engine that is doing the creation. Tape two AIs together and they can create “art” all day. None of it will be anything more than a sad imitation of what humans made.

There is a limit, of course. If someone paints a huge mural with a single hair brush, it doesn’t automatically make it better than a 2-minute sketch by a master. Aesthetics are huge, and so is creativity.

The effort involved is also sometimes behind-the-scenes: for the 2min sketch, the master prepared by honing their art for thousands of hours.

I agree with you that AI images often lack aesthetics, and i believe they necessarily lack creativity. Prompts can be inventive, but not creative - when you write a clever prompt, the result is still a surprise to the user. Creativity is the realization of an inner vision unique to the artist.

But i still think the effort is important to the value of the piece. If Michaelangelo had a scanner and a 3d printer, he could have produced a plastic David in a couple of days. I don’t believe, though, that the detail he achieved would be as impressive if it weren’t cut from a chunk of stone.

I said this in another thread, but i think that a lot of the value of art comes from the effort. That’s why people get so upset about some modern and postmodern art that looks ‘easy’.

Many things that we do are only worthwhile because of the difficulty. If you just want to put a ball in a hole, you can walk over and drop it in with your hand. Add clubs, sand and water traps, and terrain - now you have a game.

Nope, it reflects my views as well! :)

NGL, this is hot.

I think it’s a bit fatuous to argue that altruism is just self-interest. Sure, people who volunteer or help others in distress usually get some kind of benefit. They feel good about themselves, or they get to live in world that is one trillionth of a percent kinder/happier because of their good deed, etc. But the self-interest argument falls apart when you look at it from a cost/benefit standpoint. Suppose a person spends 2h raising money for the food bank. The hungry people who gets to eat and feed their children benefit the most. The local community benefits a tiny bit, and maybe the volunteer gets a small self-esteem (and other-esteem) boost. On the other hand, if that person were to spend the time earning money for a nice sweater, say, they might get a bigger self esteem boost, a few compliments, and a warm fuzzy garment that lasts for years. The hungry person is still hungry, but remains an abstraction. I would argue that the sweater earner benefitted more than the volunteer. Yet, people still volunteer.

Some people make anonymous donations. Do you really think the self-esteem boost is more valuable than the literal money that person donates?

The argument that the world would be better off if everyone acted in their self interest is ridiculous. That inevitably leads to a might-makes-right system of oppression. The only reason this argument is still being circulated is because shitheads like elon musk, who already has a huge amount of wealth and influence, spam this shit everywhere (on Twitter, Fox News, etc.) to legitimize their undeserved status and evil power.

Jury nullification for Luigi. Anything else is injustice.

waiting is effortless when you have a distraction so good that when they call your name, you briefly forget why you were waiting. i was once tempted to tell the nurse, “hold on, i have 2 more pages to read”

Different child field? This is like my first two read-throughs of a new paper in my own specialization!