Via MindMatters as usual, the usual offbase question. Can AI create beauty?
That’s not the danger. Most commercial art and writing was never meant to create beauty, even when it wasn’t weaponized by monsters. Now mechanized or offshored skills, whether in art or manufacturing, are meant to KILL PEASANTS. Nothing else.
The Hollywood writers and actors are NOT missing the point. They’ve taken a meaningful and concrete step to solve the real danger, forcing the monsters to pay about the same for AI vs real humans. When the cost is about the same, the tax-evading monsters are more likely to pick the real humans. The solution is stronger because the superstar humans are part of the union. The monsters still need to hire live superstars, so they will go along with the non-superstar parts of the deal to get what they want.
MindMatters is rambling and nattering about “authorship” and “intentionality”. Meaningless words and irrelevant to the question of beauty. Nature creates the vast majority of genuine beauty via geology and trees and flowers. A rose doesn’t have “authorship”, whatever that means.
The rambling gets even sillier with this question: Can AI compete with Picasso?
It already does. Picasso’s famous works are the PERFECT OPPOSITE of beauty. He had been turning out beautiful work, and then he figured out that rich fuckheads are stupid. Rich fuckheads want ugliness because it’s fashionable. So he satisfied their desires and got rich.
Polistra's Mill 