3 ms·
The point is: art is a means of communicating _between people_. We can appreciate pictures/movies/music generated by machines but at the end of the day we (peop
by mkleczek 2y ago
The point is: art is a means of communicating _between people_. We can appreciate pictures/movies/music generated by machines but at the end of the day we (people) are in a deep need of connection to _other people_.
I don't believe replacing people with machines in this context is possible (one might say: by definition). But if it happens it will be the anti-utopian world of loneliness.
- kleiba 2y agoThis is exactly the kind of argument I think is informed by 20th century ideas of AI. I also think in this form, it greatly exaggerates the issue at hand - AI will not totally replace human-human communication. Also, since the original context is Hollywood movies, I don't think that there is a lot of "art" in the storytelling of big block busters. Why AI shouldn't be able to write a compelling story needs to be argued more convincingly, I think.
- tartoran 2y agoWhen it comes to blockbuster movies AI could certainly create them, they're so formulaic that you could probably even get away with Markov chains.