Report struggler_sensei's Profile

thread got locked before i could post, but Imagine if black lagoon came out in todays environment.

Heya thanks for accepting

While it is on my mind, you should give Area 88 a try, it is well liked, but lesser known. It has a total runtime of 180 minutes, two 45 minute episodes and one 90 minute one. I have a review that is relatively spoiler free on my website.

I am in the same boat, I would have so much more listed. .Hack//, Beet, Inuyasha, Mazinger, Getter, Gundam (LOTS and LOTS of Gundam), Macross, the list goes on. Glad to meet you. Do you mind me sending you a friend request?

You say you are retro, yet you have not seen an anime before 1986. Ironic in a sense, yet somehow unsurprising.

Sorry if this comes across the wrong way, but you have not even reached actual gold yet. Like all prospectors you need to dig around to find it.

Anti-nihilism has nothing to do with snobbery or elitism though.

The views of academics and third-rate poets on art are irrelevant. Good is hard to define, but I can easily explain why Harry Potter is a Manichaean and childish piece of "literature," and as a consequence, a bad book. There is no subjectivity in that, just a cold analysis... The whole point that Kant explained in his third critique is that there is not an explicit criterium that would allow you to judge of the quality of a piece of art. All that reminds me of this famous (you do not need to know much to understand the gist of what Serre says) lecture on good writing:


Ah okay, good to hear, thank you for telling me about that.

It really isn't... Do you understand that saying "Anyone who says X is [insert name-calling]" is not a proper argument?... I hope so. W hen an idiot says that he only sees "some messed up shapes" in front of Guernica, I just want to tell him to shut up, for it shows that there are stuck in a pre-19th century mindset and did not try to educate themselves about 20th century art. Clearly, he has no idea about what he is talking, especially if his previous arguments were nothing else than argumentum ad populum or comparisons to overused classical pieces (Melancholia is boring indeed), you see that you are losing your time. See, piece of art have an intrinsic quality that can be explained, at the price of resorting to a poetic language. I believe that you agree that Guernica is a great painting. Picasso's greatest? Probably not, but this is not the issue here. No, people do not decide that Las Meninas is a lame painting, they have to try to understand what its grand qualities are, but that requires time and eye training. Picasso used to say that he did not know more than ten connoisseurs of painting, so I am not surprised if the idea that the value is decided by Peter the butcher and Paul the baker has become so widespread.

What you call art is in fact just craftsmanship most of the time, and all the so-called "anime art" and VTubers songs belong to the dumpster of (art) history. If it is written "novel" on the cover, it does not mean that you have literature in your hands.

Eh, who cares about the feeling of a given person? Everything only exists in comparison, and Picasso is a greater painter than Picabia, just as Shakespeare is a greater poet than Ben Jonson...

You are right in this thread... but for the wrong reasons at times.

Not at all, the test is not that perfect. Human are dumb, and fooling them is no feat.

P.S. Malevich is great. I hope to go to Russia once to see his paintings!

Art is not subjective, what makes you say that? Do you even agree that you can a posteriori judge of the quality of an improvisation, as one can judge his moves in a chess or tennis match? Of course, if you do not believe that there can be good and bad improvisions, the whole discussion is futile for anything becomes fine.

Some programs manage to pass the Turing test (a very primitive test), but that does not mean that you cannot differentiate them from human beings, who are mostly unable to write two coherent sentences in a row.

Yes, you solve at each moment the problem of finding the next notes, and there are obviously near-optimal and sub-optimal choices at each time. I thought that the analogy was clear. We have derived a lot from the original discussion, which was about art, and the (in)ability of so-called AIs have to produce it. They are much more on the side of randomness than intuition, so it does not even make sense to compare them to musicians or painters anyway.

Please, the amount of money put into the field that has a very misleading name is no indication that there is anything fundamental going on in this area. We just have more computing power, that is all. Again, there is no intelligence in AI. Today, everyone is doing machine learning and applying it to random fields where it does not work well at all. But it does matter, people keep pouring money in this boring field of pseudo-mathematics.

I do not believe that one can understand his own thought process when he improvises—it has been proven that many more zones of the brain of professional chess players (compared to an amateur) activate when they play, and if they would not be able to explain all their moves, no one would ever say that they just improvise without thinking when they play blitz (say). I would only be convinced by peer-reviewed articles studying the brain activity and somehow showing that what you call "feeling, intuition, and spontaneity" is not a different form of thought, and in fact, the exact same one that allows you to make a "leap" and find the solution of a puzzle. What does happen in the brain when you are thinking about solving something? You do not reach the solution by logic but by intuition. Yet, this intuition is a form of thinking. I believe that it is a much more fundamental way of thinking that human beings have developed, when one does not process "rationally" to reach the right conclusion.

Indeed. But this is not how science works. You cannot just say "Who's to say that X might not happen?" when you have no theoretical way to explain why X would ever be happening. This is why, as of today, this whole story about computer gaining sentience is of the realm of overused science fiction.

You are misusing the word intuition, for all creative endeavours proceed from intuition—as such, the expression "intuitive artist" is either nonsensical, or a way to describe artists who act randomly to some extent. Jazz musicians, when they improvise, do not play what feels right but what is right, and Miles Davis first watched the full movie before playing for Lift to the Gallows; I cannot believe a second that he did not think of the whole footprints for the ephemeral sculpture that he was going to carve in the air. Jazz musicians are like mathematicians who would solve problems in real time without ever stopping the flow of their thoughts.

Absolutely not. For bacteria are already living beings, that complexify and eventually yield the marvel called "brain." Cables will stay cables. The reductio ad electricus will not serve you here (I will become materialist when you predict my behaviour by analysing those electric signals), because when people speak about AIs, they are not mentioning the technical possibility to re-creating artificially a functioning human brain (let us start by an animal brain first, and see how consciousness can emerge from there), but rather of programs that mysteriously "gain sentience." The latter is science fiction, and the former is way beyond reach. Don't worry, your calculator will not turn against you if you drop it from your desk.

Kandinsky is not an intuitive artist, I have no idea what makes you say that. I only see perfect reason and taste in this alignement of those circles and lines... It is less obvious than Escher when he computes, but I am confident that nothing is left to randomness—the choice of colours, for example, is never arbitrary. Erk, Pollock is a huge fraud, I wonder who ever considered him great.

It really is though. The technology is primitive (bruteforce or machine learning are anything but intelligence), and I have yet to hear about a credible theory showing how consciousness could emerge from a bunch of cables. No, this is not that human beings fear the unknown, it is rather that they know that they themselves have never tolerated weakness. A fortiori, a superior intelligence would have no mercy against the primitive beings we are.

There are many fake artists indeed. No great artist would ever say that, be he Delacroix or Picasso.

I do not think that this science fiction dream will ever come true. Assume that it does happen. Humanity will be forced to eradicate AIs or be forced to be either put to slavery (AIs are much smarter and stronger than human beings) or annihilated. It does not have to be a very complicated question for artists can always discuss about their work—"meaning" should be considered in a very broad way here. It does not mean that what they say increases the value of their work of course, but it can definitely make it decrease! I believe that all artists try to do something in particular, but AIs are not even as the level of écriture automatique...

The Current Events club:

https://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?cid=83300

I agree that it would be a quite interesting topic, and from a cynical viewpoint, a topic where you will easily get money for research!

By the way, The Apparition (1876) is the painting of Gustave Moreau that I had in mind:


This AI thing is a pale version of this 150 years old painting. But I find it unfair to compare digital art to "real" art, and as long as we do not put AIs in robots, it would easily be justifiable to forbid the latter from competing against humans. But to me, the most important point is that an AI would be unable to explain the meaning of its "pieces"... Likewise, it does not really matter if you can bruteforce a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis in less than 1 billion symbols if no one cannot make sense of the proof.