the_dunk_tank

15881 readers

618 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

190

Conservatives are so FUCKING WEIRD (hexbear.net)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

NSFW 131 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think the photographer example you put does touch upon an interesting point since there really were people who ridiculed photography as not art. And honestly the criteria I had said kinda would disqualify photography, which is unfair.

Would AI be able to create art if it really did understand how the pieces it's putting together are part of what the user wants? I think it might be an useless question, because skeptics (like me) can keep shifting the goalposts of what understanding really means. So it's unfalsifiable in a way. Some techbros claim AI can understand it because they are capable of minimizing a loss function. But I'm not satisfied by that because it amounts to making the claim that if a system performs a task well, the system has the property of having a cognitive understanding of the task. It's a non sequitur, and I've seen AI enthusiasts make the same form of non sequitur a thousand times.

Maybe the conclusion we can draw from it is that trying to define what exactly is and isn't art is hard, but clearly, the OP is not.