4 ms·

> > The point of art art is that it is created by a human or group of humans. > Not for me as a consumer of art. There's a sense in which you don't really get

> > The point of art art is that it is created by a human or group of humans. > Not for me as a consumer of art. There's a sense in which you don't really get to say that. Artists are the people who define art, much as scientists get to define what science is. So if someone said, "The point of science is that it is conducted according to the principles of reason and scientific method", and you responded; "Not for me as a consumer of science", then you'd be in a sticky position. You could certainly believe that amethyst rays will cure your gout. But really you'll be a consumer of something else, something that's not science even if you insist on calling it that.

matkoniecz 4y ago
Then artists may discover that art defined in this way is only part of what is considered as art nowadays. It is quite curious - is it half of it? 1%? 75%? 0.1%? Also: > Artists are the people who define art, much as scientists get to define what science is. Not really, that is not how language works. As far as language goes, it is defined by more wider community. See poor cryptologists and meaning of word "crypto", one more victim of other bunch of events.
sokoloff 4y ago
Judging the quality of art is subjective to a vastly larger degree than the quality of science. If you threw away all the art and literature and waited 250 years, what you ended up with wouldn’t be a regeneration of that art. If you threw away all the science knowledge and waited 250 years, most of the same science would regenerate.
shkkmo 4y ago
And in that sense, there is no threat. People will still be able to make any of the things they do now as a form of self expression. But much of art is created as a commercial work, and it is that market that AI may threaten. This is true of any field where workers are at risk of being replaced. People aren't going to be prevented from engaging in that activity, but it will become harder or impossible to do so commercially.
- matkoniecz 4y ago
  > But much of art is created as a commercial work, and it is that market that AI may threaten. Not only that! People creating as a hobby typically want an audience. And unlike weightlifting it may be really hard to have people interested in process rather than in outcome.
nonrandomstring 4y ago
I see 'intent' is an unpopular conceit here.

matkoniecz 4y ago

Then artists may discover that art defined in this way is only part of what is considered as art nowadays. It is quite curious - is it half of it? 1%? 75%? 0.1%? Also: > Artists are the people who define art, much as scientists get to define what science is. Not really, that is not how language works. As far as language goes, it is defined by more wider community. See poor cryptologists and meaning of word "crypto", one more victim of other bunch of events.

sokoloff 4y ago

Judging the quality of art is subjective to a vastly larger degree than the quality of science. If you threw away all the art and literature and waited 250 years, what you ended up with wouldn’t be a regeneration of that art. If you threw away all the science knowledge and waited 250 years, most of the same science would regenerate.

shkkmo 4y ago

And in that sense, there is no threat. People will still be able to make any of the things they do now as a form of self expression. But much of art is created as a commercial work, and it is that market that AI may threaten. This is true of any field where workers are at risk of being replaced. People aren't going to be prevented from engaging in that activity, but it will become harder or impossible to do so commercially.

matkoniecz 4y ago
> But much of art is created as a commercial work, and it is that market that AI may threaten. Not only that! People creating as a hobby typically want an audience. And unlike weightlifting it may be really hard to have people interested in process rather than in outcome.

nonrandomstring 4y ago

I see 'intent' is an unpopular conceit here.