zlacker

>>dredmo+(OP)
I've been finding that the strangest part of discussions around art AI among technical people is the complete lack of identification or empathy: it seems to me that most computer programmers should be just as afraid as artists, in the face of technology like this!!! I am a failed artist (read, I studied painting in school and tried to make a go at being a commercial artist in animation and couldn't make the cut), and so I decided to do something easier and became a computer programmer, working for FAANG and other large companies and making absurd (to me!!) amounts of cash. In my humble estimation, making art is vastly more difficult than the huge majority of computer programming that is done. Art AI is terrifying if you want to make art for a living- and, if AI is able to do these astonishingly difficult things, why shouldn't it, with some finagling, also be able to do the dumb, simple things most programmers do for their jobs?

The lack of empathy is incredibly depressing...

>>meebob+kc
>> making art is vastly more difficult than the huge majority of computer programming that is done.

I completely agree with it. Take a contemporary pianist for example, the amount of dedication to both theory and practice, posture, mastering the instrument and what not, networking skills, technology skills, video recording, music recording, social media management, etc.

>>borede+Rd
You think music theory is more demanding than CS? I've dedicated decades and probably 75% of my youth to mastering this instrument called a computing device. It has numerous layers, each completely different and each significant enough to build a standalone career out of (OS, networking, etc). I feel insulted if you think playing and mastering a piano is the same thing.

Extreme specialists are found everywhere. Mastering skateboarding at world level will eat your life too, but it's not "harder" than programming. At least, for any commonsensical interpretation of "harder".

All the rest, we do too. Except I don't record videos and I'm sure it is not childishly easy, but it will not eat my life.

>>drinfi+MD
This exact comment could be made by a jazz soloist with a few words changed and be just as valid. I think you're underestimating how deep other fields, including artistic fields, are. Anything as competitive as an artistic field will always result in amounts of mastery needed at the top level that are barely noticeable to outside observers.

>>dangon+Jf1
> This exact comment could be made by a jazz soloist with a few words changed and be just as valid.

It's not that uncommon for professional programmers to be pro-level musical soloists on the side, or for retired programmers to play top-level music. The reverse is far less common. I do think that says something.

> Anything as competitive as an artistic field will always result in amounts of mastery needed at the top level that are barely noticeable to outside observers.

Sure. Top-level artistic fields are well into the diminishing returns level, whereas programming is still at the level where even a lot of professional programmers are not just bad, but obviously bad in a way that even non-programmers can understand.

Even in the easiest fields, you can always find something to compete on (e.g. the existence of serious competitive rubik's cube doesn't mean solving a rubik's cube is hard). A difficult field is one where the difference between the top and the middle is obvious to an outsider.