Live data from Hacker News

Coarse is better

borretti.me

81–90 of 125 posts

Re: Coarse is better

#83
post #79
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has happened. There is a related term we use which is related to a historical fact .. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

GP is saying mass unemployment caused by technology hasn't happened, not that the Luddites weren't a real historical group.

Correct, and I am saying the Luddites were a group of people that suffered mass unemployment following a technological change. Specifically, the luddites were a group of 19th century textile workers that were left out of work due to the introduction of automated machinery in the textile industry. In other words, they are a perfect example of what GP claims hasn’t happened.

Re: Coarse is better

#84
post #83
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP is saying mass unemployment caused by technology hasn't happened, not that the Luddites weren't a real historical group.

Correct, and I am saying the Luddites were a group of people that suffered mass unemployment following a technological change. Specifically, the luddites were a group of 19th century textile workers that were left out of work due to the introduction of automated machinery in the textile industry. In other words, they are a perfect example of what GP claims hasn’t happened.

A small group is not "mass unemployment" -- that's the point.

> In a British textile industry that employed a million people, the [Luddite] movement’s numbers never rose above a couple of thousand.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/rage-against-the-machine

Re: Coarse is better

#85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is what has underpinned all of human progress towards automation. It isn't a bad thing. Every time we automate something the luddites cry out about the coming mass unemployment. It has never happened.

What other automations have been hyped to automate and replace so many different types of jobs at once? Whether or not it comes to fruition, it's making large portions of society feel uneasy, and not just programmers, or artists, or teachers.

The steam engine, for example

Re: Coarse is better

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is what has underpinned all of human progress towards automation. It isn't a bad thing. Every time we automate something the luddites cry out about the coming mass unemployment. It has never happened.

The promise is to automate the drudge work, freeing people to pursue their passions. Like, you know... creating art.

I mean...

There's the concept, and then there's the painting.

AI slop from a generic prompt is not the same as "using AI to get my concept in physical form faster."

Imagine, for example, a one-man animated movie. But, like, with a huge amount of work put into good, artistic, key-frames; what would previously have been a manga. That's possible, soon, and I think that's huge and actual art.

Re: Coarse is better

#87
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other automations have been hyped to automate and replace so many different types of jobs at once? Whether or not it comes to fruition, it's making large portions of society feel uneasy, and not just programmers, or artists, or teachers.

The steam engine, for example

Not finding a lot of sears and roebuck ads for steam engine driven girlfriends.

Re: Coarse is better

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A drawing/painting of a car crash certainly can be https://www.etsy.com/listing/4329570102/crash-impact-car-can... As can a photo of one (sorry, I don't have a good example of that). And, both a camera and AI are an example of "using a tool to create an image of something". Both involve a creator to determine what picture is created; but the tool is central/crucial to the creation.

I would never argue that a painting of a car crash couldn’t be art. It’s funny your bringing up that a camera is a tool for creating art; I also hold photographic art in lower esteem than other kinds of visual art (though I still think some kind of photography can be art). At a certain point, we need to be realistic about the amount of effort involved in artistic creation. Here’s a thought experiment: someone puts tw…

> Here’s a thought experiment: someone puts two paintings in a photocopier and makes a single sheet of paper with both paintings. Did that person create art?

Yeah, it gets really murky there. For that specific thought experiment, I would say it depends on if it's something that people will see and think about and talk about, etc. For example, a collection of pairs of images of people that were assassinated over the years and an image of their assassin would certain get people talking (some in a good way, some bad).

When it comes to effort, I think that's only a factor, too; and not even necessarily a good one. There's art out there like

- Someone taped a banana to a wall (and included instructions for taping another banana to replace it)

- Someone (literally) threw a few cans of paint at a canvas and created something chaotic looking

Both of those things are "low effort" at first glance. But someone spent time thinking about it, and what they wanted to do, and what people might think of it. And, without a doubt, there's people that would refer to both as art.

Re: Coarse is better

#89
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to be "creativity" (another hazy definition!) rather than effort, though. Photography, often said to be all about framing, seems very low effort. You might take one lucky snap. Then the effort can be claimed to be in years of getting ready to be lucky, which is a fair point, but that displaced effort isn't really in the specific photo. Besides, maybe you're a very happy photographer, loved every minute of…

Yeah, photography (editing aside) is about having taste and getting lucky. A good photographer can of course raise their odds of getting lucky, but still. There's some technique in there too, but that's really not all that complicated. That said, I think few things match a good photo. There's something about a photo subject being real that I find fascinating. A photo exhibition does not display the imagination of the…

It does, however, display the photographers ability to say "hey, you should see this" and be right about it.
Post reply on HN