>>17051853
But muh rigour.

What a twist of fate that fields that are more ambiguous and difficult to define ended up being harder to automate. It's like the reverse of that stupid xkcd purity meme.

>>17051857
How is mr xkcd taking all this?

File: 1659033967334534.gif (2.19 MB, 1046x698)

2.19 MB GIF

>>17051853
>talks about pseudo-intellectualism
>is a living example of it in action
many such cases.
>theology.
christcuckery you mean. Everything that would depart from it you would find a pseudo-intellectual reason to dismiss.
> soulless, boring and anti-social
is also the best possible description of the clergy that molested your grandfather.
>literature,
Judging my your example of "art" I know you will tell people to read "the classics" and rub your chin sagely. Or wait, lemme guess, Atlas Shrugged.
>philosophy,
Lots of great stuff in there. Though any rationalist worth their salt would impale your head on a stick for shitting on one of the greatest fields of a priori research. Dunking on math is emblematic compensation behavior.
>metaphysics
Ah you are one of those aether faggots. I really gotta filter that word. Here is a metaphysical take: the notion of coordinates is fundamentally man-made and has absolutely no grounding in physical reality. As such, interpreting Mach's Principle as the assertion that all frames are body fixed (in other words no absolute frame exists) is such a trivial cosmology to wrap your head around that even humoring a global reference frame afterwards without empirical evidence of its existence borders on absurd.
>>17051857
>more ambiguous and difficult to define ended up being harder to automate
An LLM can slop together better philosophy, literature and art than all you faggots shitting on sciences can make in a lifetime. Granted that is a low bar, but it is a bar.

>>17053067
welding pipes is harder than math. AI proved it
if I was a mathlet I would feel very much shame right about now

>>17053075
you can weld pipes with less math then you need to design an LLM tho

>>17053067
>can't make ART?
>yo i cant make ART
>you people hear this guy?
>he says i cant make ART
>damn, his jaws flapping hard
>but all I hear is a FART
>yo is this nigga sweet?
>or is he just TART
>or maybe hes BOTH, at the SAME time
>got him looking LAME with my INSANE rhymes
Tell your AI to write that you fucking bitch

>>17053067
>Blah blah blah schizo ramblings
GUYS! LOOK!
Its the pig fucker again!
No thread is safe from his mental illness.

>>17053067
not an argument.

>>17053111
what does that even mean?

>>17053067
Bing bing 1 up wahoo!!!

>>17053067
You're the "christofascist" poster, aren't you?

>pseudo-intellectual endeavour
roundabout way to say all intellectual endeavours are in some sense worthless, pseudo- or not pseudo-. Let's all focus on non-intellectual endeavours surely worth our time much more, at least economically

>>17054720
I am outright elated to inform you upon checking the archives that, apparently, there is more than one. What a wonderful trend it could become! (It won't, who are we kidding.)

>>17053067
>An LLM can slop together better philosophy, literature and art than all you faggots shitting on sciences can make in a lifetime. Granted that is a low bar, but it is a bar.
is there a single example of a relevant, AI-generated piece of art or literature?

>>17051853
>retarded spiteful mutants try a change of tactic
"AI" doesn't exist. Seethe about it.

>>17055264
>is there a single example of a relevant, AI-generated piece of art or literature?
No, but is there a single example of niggercattle like you doing it? Because I think that was the crux of his attack.

>>17055264
I think the other anon is right, I think assuming there isn't (or ever will be) would only add to the insult

>>17055295
>assuming there isn't (or ever will be)
That's not an assumption. It's inherently true.

File: 1673238634306567.png (725 KB, 575x558)

725 KB PNG

>>17055296
amen

Imagine being the schizo retard who believes a statistical model that doesn't understand, experience, intend or mean anything can create valuable art or philosophy.

>>17055306
it's not about understanding, by pure chance it can, literature is just a string of words, in theory you can assemble a piece of art if you throw enough computation at it

the thing is, good fiction is orders of magnitude more "complex" than mathematical treatises because it has far more expansive vocabulary and less defined structure

>>17056078
>it's not about understanding, by pure chance it can, literature is just a string of words, in theory you can assemble a piece of art if you throw enough computation at it
I understand how your subhuman thought process ends at this conclusion and all I can say is that you will never be fully human and thus never grasp your trivial mistake.

>>17055306
Or physics, or mathematics, by the same token of both of these disciplines taking understanding, experience and interpretation skills to create pictures that transcend (and often shape) formalism.

>>17056090
>Or physics, or mathematics
You're gonna have a hard time making that case because 1: those enterprises aim to transcend human subjectivity and 2: they're just a means to an ends as far as most people are concerned.

>>17056096
>2: they're just a means to an ends as far as most people are concerned.
that is rich coming from someone who speaks of art. Do I need to point out the fragrant hypocrisy before addressing the other point or is "looking at the modern media landscape" enough of a pointer?

>>17056097
>zero-information-content cuntbabble
I see salty tears but I don't see any kind of refutation.

>>17056101
Entertainment, moron.
Books, movies, music, they exist as far as most people are concerned for the purposes of entertainment. Star wars sequels and funko pops, boy bands, Netflix series, FIFA games and poorly written erorica. As far as the average joe is concerned art is consumable, vapid entertainment. And that is fact.

>>17056103
>Entertainment, moron.
What about it?

>As far as the average joe is concerned art is consumable
How did you get from Star Wars and Funko Pops to art? Are you mentally ill by any chance?

>>17056105
It's clear you are either playing dumb or outright retarded, I will give you very grug-tier questions to answer to lead this inbred horse to water. Filmmaking, Music, sculpting, writing, which of these are "art" to you? This is a very simple question.

>>17056106
>>17056106
>Filmmaking, Music, sculpting, writing, which of these are "art" to you?
Oh. I see what's going on. Music is an artform, right? So when you're blasting Lil Pump through your phone speaker, you're listening to music. Therefore you're listening to art. But you're not doing it because you hold Lil Pump (or art) in high regard. You're doing it because your 80 IQ ass - always on guard against stray thoughts - is deathly afraid of silence. Therefore art is just a means to an ends, at least as far as you (the prototype of Americoon idiocracy) are concerned.

I don't think it's possible to argue anything to a barely sentient retard who uses word patterns as a substitute for actual thought. You're basically a bio-LLM.

>>17056106
>>17056112
> Therefore art is just a means to an ends, at least as far as you (the prototype of Americoon idiocracy) are concerned.
Finally you understand. And fun fact, that is not even my position to make. It is that of the majority of people, the lowest common denominator, the exact kind of person that expects science to be useful and nothing else. I just reflected your own anti-intellectualism back at (You), and you don't seem to like what you are seeing. Why? Those are the people you associate with. And you expect me not to e disgusted at you?

>>17056112
hoooly kek. anon, was that really necessary?

>>17056118
Yeah, that's ok. I didn't expect you to understand what the actual point there was. But it still stands. You really are barely sentient.

>>17056121
No, I fully understand that your point of "subhuman mass produced slop doesn't count as art". And I would agree with it. *I* would. But are you starting to understand what I meant by hypocrisy? You and I aren't "most people". Do you think "most people" (which ARE NPCs, as you correctly realized) would share this sentiment?

>>17056126
>I fully understand
If you fully understand (had a little spoonfeeding session with ChatGPT, eh?) maybe you can tell me if you still think this question is some big gotcha:
>Filmmaking, Music, sculpting, writing, which of these are "art" to you?

>>17056128
I ask you another very, very simple question then. I will refer you to the very beginning, and lead you through this.
>2: they're just a means to an ends as far as most people are concerned.
To my mind, this implies that majority opinion is (to you) what ought to matter here. Is that the case? That is a yes or no question. I will gladly walk you through both answers preemptively.
>Yes
If you believe in the authority of majority opinion on what science ought to be (useful), then surely you are going to concede that the same metric must be universally applicable, right? Looking at sales figures the definition of the majority of people thinks art ought to be is beyond the pale. You advocate for lowest common denominator science, you advocate for lowest common denominator art.
>No
Then your point was nothing but hypocritical posturing and we can join forces in wiping our asses with what the unwashed masses think.

>>17056137
>I ask you another
No, we're still doing the previous one. So, do you still think it's some big gotcha? No? Then why did you ask it? I'm gonna tardwrangle you. I want you to reflect on what you did.

>>17056146
I explained why it is a gotcha in the very same post you failed to read. Maybe a final time for the intellectually dishonest among us (you):
1) you invoke the authority of majority opinion
2) you can pick any particular sufficiently popular artistic medium, but it is safe to assume you believe in the existence of at least one (say, music)
3) invoking 1) I can produce an example from the medium in 2) that is anathema to what you would deem art.
So you can have 1) or 2) but not both without picking and choosing when you care about the opinion of the majority.

>>17056149
I see. So you still don't understand the basic point of >>17056112. Maybe ask the machine for help.

>>17056152
I see you cannot follow a simple logical implication of what you yourself wrote. So let me end with a final yes or no question: would you give a Lil Pump listening 60 IQ wigger authority of what consitutes as art? No? Would you if "most people" were exactly like him? No? Then you lost the argument.

Communicating with literal retards is a waste of time. I'm just gonna talk to myself.

Even the people who actually listen to Lil Pump wouldn't call it "art". Yes, they would call it music and they would agree that music is art. But even the blackest gorilla nigger understands that not all music is art. Such a specimen may lack a clear idea of what art is, but even he knows better than some "people" ITT. Wannabe STEM autists are basically animals.

But nevermind that. Suppose there's some aberrant soul out there willing to argue that Lil Pump is Art with a capital A. If they're doing it in good faith, it's probably because in THEIR mind, mumble rap somehow transcends idle entertainment. They want to elevate it above pure function. Kinda like autists and their favorite STEM subject, except calling something "a science" or "a math field" only has special connotations to special people.

>>17056161
>. Yes, they would call it music and they would agree that music is art. But even the blackest gorilla nigger understands that not all music is art.
It does not matter that they understand that "not all music is art", they will come to an understanding of art that will vehemently, fundamentally disagree with yours. So obviously unqualified majority opinion is not only irrevelant but actively. Ironic that you mentioned philosopher earlier, I could have dismissed your point with a snide paraphrasing of plato but I expected you to be quicker on the uptake. As for your other point:
> 1: those enterprises aim to transcend human subjectivity
measurement does, models do, interpretation and pictures not so much. There is no point explaining the intricacies of that to a moron but in short (especially in physics) people first try to generalize things informally and then try to find a clean way to get there, that is why topology works with mental images of rubber sheets and not point sets, for example.

actively harmful*

>>17056173
>It does not matter that they understand that "not all music is art",
It does. It makes them more capable of rationality than you - a biobot operating on purely on syntax ("M=A, LP=M => LP=A") with no semantics.

>>17056179
>i contradict myself because i am a free thinker
vibes and gut feelings but no logic, like all npcs

The windowlicking tard doesn't even remember what the exchange is about. He thinks it's about a consensus on what specific artifacts count as art. If he had any theory of mind, he would've realized the stuff a particular person regards as MERE entertainment isn't stuff that same person regards as art. That's already enough to undermine the notion that art is mere entertainment to most people. You don't need a consensus on what, specifically, makes good art. But wannabe STEM autists are basically animals so he doesn't get it even if if spoonfed.

>>17051853
Up until the 19th century math was based. For the last 130 years though:

Yes

>>17056195
>indian reply syntax
>You don't need a consensus on what, specifically, makes good art.
That is what your cope boils down to. You get hung up on trying to justify that art isn't entertainment (which I agree with) yet trying to uphold that science is just meant to be glorified engineering (useful stuff to create more product), when both derive from the same underlying principles (being cattle, which you are). You could not provide a single argument for either without outing yourself as a massive NPC. But you get hung up on dismantling the analogy that you don't realize it's one own goal after another. You can chimp out at opinions I don't even hold though about hypothetical retards just like you.

>>17053067
>can make in a lifetime
Mmm, here is the lie making you a faggot.

You presume circumstances contrary in the measure of current and future individuals

File: acekz0-2569882778.jpg (249 KB, 1536x1024)

249 KB JPG

>>17053244

>>17056443
>You get hung up on trying to justify that art isn't entertainment
Psychotic delusion + you're making the same trivial token-stringer mistake for the 20th time.

>yet trying to uphold that science is just meant to be glorified engineering
Another psychotic delusion. I took no stance on that.

This board is reddit.

>>17057394
This board is AI and AI is reddit.

>>17051853
Me too

>>17057394
Reddit is pro-science and delusional, 4chan is anti-science and realistic