Comments by "Wandrative" (@Wandrative) on "Cleo Abram" channel.

  1. 6
  2. As an artist I disagree. The most important part about art is its beauty and aesthetic quality. Certainly there are other aspect added onto it, but its secondary. Your philosophy is the reason why society has learned to under appreciate art already. The dystopian aspect of this whole AI thing is that society will undervalue art and beauty even more as a non challant disposable thing. People wont uphold other beings who have a superior intellect and understanding of beauty/shape/form. However, its hypocritical. The first thing AIs could do effortlessly was math. AIs can be lawyers, AIs can literally do any kind of job of higher intellect now. So why is society not even thinking of replacing them, whilst being so quick to replace the realm of art? At this point what is the point of existence of human civilization? For me AI art as of now is might be good as mediocre art, but it didn’t reach the level of mastery. I want you to ask of the AI actually understands beauty and form, or is it just thinking mathematically and creating a pattern based a mathematical 2D analysis of other images stolen from the internet. AI does not understand beauty. And the prompting consumer also does not. In the distant future, if ai does become evolved enough to the point of having sentience and total artistic mastery - then I will recognize it as its own intelligent being who is more enlightened compared to an average non-artist human. This sentience should then have rights and not be ‘owned’ by a company nor its ‘user’. Its creation is its own creation. But why does society even want to make an artificial sentient being in the future? Its a completely dystopian thing that should be stopped.
    5
  3. 4
  4. 3
  5. 3
  6. 3
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22.  @shadowrylander  If I write in an accepting open mind, then the thing I can say is that its also impossible to conclude that everything is relative and that beauty doesn't 'exist'. That is also a belief.. based on not much. The beautiful object will continue to exist even if the perceiver disappears. Idealism and absolutism isn't really about endorsing the cloning of one same thing, as the lack if variation is not beautiful since beauty prospers in complexity and variation. I am not really sure what the opinions about feces have a place in terms of our discussion of aesthetics and beauty, you are rather talking about objectivity in general here. In this case your first quote that I was in partial acceptance with will fit well. The beetle is a limited being and the human who happens to despise the feces is a limited being and they are both encouraged to perceive it to their benefit rather then to the net benefit of the universe. If the person is more inclined to have a wider understanding that elevates their personal experience then one will value the importance of feces in the cycle of the environment, which is getting closer to the higher truth. Aristotle wasn't a complete relativist like modern phenomenologists or Confucius, but in contrast to the philosophers of his own time and his own culture, he had more relativistic sides to his thought. If Plato was 100% absolutist maybe Aristotle was 50%. He was an objectivist to ethical things rather then topics related to beauty and form.
    1
  23.  @shadowrylander  The object exists because the beauty of it exists. Beauty comes first, not the object. Interaction is merely a consciousness recognizing the existence of its beauty in its own intellect. You have given utilitarian examples of why certain things are considered beautiful. But this reward benefit idea is basically the same as calling AI the same thing as a human intellect (which is not because it is existentially different in its nature), because the AI is trained via positively rewarding it when it gets certain things 'right'. Because the art world have already succumbed to this type of relativism its getting destroyed, (unlike the math world where the AI was technologically able to replace first and foremost, but have still been safeguarded). Beauty is not something that makes you feel good through observation. It is about understanding what is aesthetically right. If what you say is true then when humans degenerate their visual intellect (due to AI and those who value nothing about art abusing it in the future), nothing matters and nothing is lost, because those souls cant recognize the beauty so nothing is lost. Even more, its best for all of us to disappear and the most simplest mind who is happy about everything should remain for the universe to exist in a 'beautiful nature'. SO all artists die and cultured people who with higher visual intellect should die for the universe to become beautiful. For my drastic example, I have seen 'artists' that hung live fish in sealed pockets to watch them suffer and die, which they wrongly perceived as beautiful. If everyone else disappears, that becomes beauty? Beauty is more then a mere psychological phenomenon. Although there are variations of beauty, that does not mean that beauty doesn't exist in essence..
    1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1