My (sarcastic) answer ref. the quality and value of art: I recognize only the authority of the Supreme High Council for the Certification of Art Quality.
In other words, the quality of art is not a valid, falsifiable, reproduceable question. There are no authorities, standards, or units of measurement for the quality of art.
Until five years ago, the definition of art (and of artistic quality) was a rather inconsequential problem. Art quality was a topic for salons of bored intellectuals, who would debate questions such as: what is the value of a painting made by a monkey, or by a child?
In fact, we had quite a few famous experiments with experts unable to distinguish between kindergarten drawings and abstract paintings valued at millions.
And here comes AI.
And we make this astonishing discovery, that it is incredibly easy to make art, but incredibly difficult to do science and engineering.
Any monkey or child can draw or sing something that we can then interpret artistically in a million different ways (“what did the artist mean?”).
But only one researcher in a million is capable of discovering and proving a valid, reliable, reproducible scientific theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment