4 ms·

> decrying machinery that made cloth You can be passionate about this advancement without placing profits first. > Imagine how many more video games and movie

> decrying machinery that made cloth You can be passionate about this advancement without placing profits first. > Imagine how many more video games and movies can be made... Again, you can do this with passion and without placing profit first > There are tremendous benefits to making art something anyone can get for dirt cheap I disagree strongly here. Art has value in large part because most people cannot produce it. I like stories, but not everyone has a good story to tell. When the story is AI-generated, there isn't a consciousness behind it to give it the passion required for good stories.

ben_w 2y ago
> You can be passionate about this advancement without placing profits first. Given the riots inspired by this machinery, I don't believe this is possible. (Arguably also communism, but there was a lot going on back then). > I disagree strongly here. Art has value in large part because most people cannot produce it. I like stories, but not everyone has a good story to tell. When the story is AI-generated, there isn't a consciousness behind it to give it the passion required for good stories. I'm not sure either way on this. Possibly a simultaneous agree-and-disagree? I agree that art may be a "peacock's tail" where the difficulty is the point, and making it cheap makes it cease to be art. In this case, some hypothetical AI which everyone agrees is totally conscious and also that it creates works of exquisite and sublime wonder, still won't be "art". But the other view of art is that it may also be simply "nice stuff"; if so, then the ability to discern good art from bad art is sufficient, even if you regard an LLM as little more than "fancy autocomplete" — it doesn't need consciousness* of its own, the consciousness of the user is sufficient. I suspect there's a lot of people in both groups. * by whichever of the many meanings you intend for that

ben_w 2y ago

> You can be passionate about this advancement without placing profits first. Given the riots inspired by this machinery, I don't believe this is possible. (Arguably also communism, but there was a lot going on back then). > I disagree strongly here. Art has value in large part because most people cannot produce it. I like stories, but not everyone has a good story to tell. When the story is AI-generated, there isn't a consciousness behind it to give it the passion required for good stories. I'm not sure either way on this. Possibly a simultaneous agree-and-disagree? I agree that art may be a "peacock's tail" where the difficulty is the point, and making it cheap makes it cease to be art. In this case, some hypothetical AI which everyone agrees is totally conscious and also that it creates works of exquisite and sublime wonder, still won't be "art". But the other view of art is that it may also be simply "nice stuff"; if so, then the ability to discern good art from bad art is sufficient, even if you regard an LLM as little more than "fancy autocomplete" — it doesn't need consciousness* of its own, the consciousness of the user is sufficient. I suspect there's a lot of people in both groups. * by whichever of the many meanings you intend for that