3 ms·
I don't feel too strongly about what I am about to say but can't we find a parallel here to the following statement? > I am not surprised people find compilers
by therein 3y ago
I don't feel too strongly about what I am about to say but can't we find a parallel here to the following statement?
> I am not surprised people find compilers exciting, and equally enthralled with the compilation process and also amazed at the binary outputs they create, but I wouldn't call describing program flow using a higher level language programming.
If the artist/developer can describe what they see in their mind's eye using a higher level of abstraction, does that invalidate value and function of the output?
- itronitron 3y agoI don't think that revised statement is an equal parallel, as spin art and generative models are not dependent on each other. Although someone could, and probably will, make a generative spin art model if they haven't already done so. Basically, I think there is a risk that someone becomes overly enamored with the generative process, and just creates something that is solely an outcome of that generative process. A good example for this is the generative tree drawing algorithms. Great, a line drawing that resembles a tree, "look what we can make tech do!" That is math and algorithms, not art.
- therein 3y ago> I think there is a risk that someone becomes overly enamored with the generative process, and just creates something that is solely an outcome of that generative process. I agree with that entirely. That is already happening at a concerningly rapid pace with little in its way and will only speed up.
- halfcat 3y ago> does that invalidate value and function of the output? Invalidate? No. Devalue? Yes.