3 ms·
The paper is about generating art. The paper makes claims about the subjective value of the art. Seems central. If the art is not good, but commercial kitsch,
by ryanklee 3y ago
The paper is about generating art. The paper makes claims about the subjective value of the art.
Seems central. If the art is not good, but commercial kitsch, then that matters.
Now that software engineers are in the business of making software that generates art, get ready to have these conversations, pretentious or not, whatever is meant by that.
- kelseyfrog 3y agoThat's right. The authors operationalized "highly aesthetic quality" and grounded it in composition, lighting, color and contrast, subject and background, and "additional subjective assessments." There's zero citations in this section related to accessing artistic quality, operationalization, or grounding. A LOT of programmers are going to hate this, but if you're doing soft-sciences work(which this is), you should be knowledgeable in that area and cite some sources that indicate you've at least considered what you're doing. The lack of citations in this area is an unknowing admittance of that ignorance. I don't care if they cite a paper just to disagree with it, but to not know that they don't know is simply unacceptable. This is basic undergrad material in other relevant fields.
- ryanklee 3y agoPeople have been reasoning about this stuff for thousands of years and SWEs act like they can just make shit up. Same for psychology of mind and consciousness. AI has thrust the tech industry into fields they've been ignoring, and now the tendency is to just continue to ignore them, pretending they don't exist, and filling the void with naive garbarge. Soft isn't so soft anymore -- and never was, always has been, always will be hard.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]