Hacker News Reader

Comment by p-e-w | Hacker News Reader

Do the experiment: Take one of those novels for which you think you don't care who wrote it.

Now imagine you found out that novel was actually generated by a computer program. It's the same text, but you now know that there is no human behind it, just an algorithm.

Would that make a difference for how you view the story? It certainly would to me. If it makes even a tiny difference to you as well, it demonstrates that you do care about the artist, even in cases where you don't notice it under normal circumstances.

View on HN

You don't even need an algorithm, just research what the human authors say about their work and specific points which the reader values high in them. Quite often you will figure out that it's just random s** they wrote together to get something done, without any deeper meaning. But people make up some meaning because that how it works for them, makes it better.

The art is on the perception, not the intention. Though, if they overlap, it's more satisfying.

Human creative works are art not because they have "deeper meaning", but because they reflect the humanity of their creators. Whether an author writes a multi-layered novel built around a complex philosophical idea, or just light reading for entertainment, has no impact on that fundamental essence which makes art what it is. Not all art is great, but all art is human.

That's a tautology. Human creative works by definition reflect the humanity of their creators. AI creative works reflect the humanity of its training set, which eventually may be indistinguishable.

As for all art being human, there are a lot of birds who make art to attract a mate in nature, and at least one captive elephant that can paint.

Rolling around in dogshit doesn't make me a dog. Same if I eat it.

You made me think about this a little more, but I still don't quite agree.

I thought of two novels that I enjoyed:

First, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime. I have no recollection of who the author is, but if I learned that the story had been computer generated, it would bother me a little. So... "point to you."

Second, Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption. I know it was written by Stephen King, but the plot is so elegant that if you told me it had been computer generated, I don't think I would care. It's simply a great enjoyable story.

In the next 10 years, if the world is flooded with computer-generated novels that are hugely popular and the vast majority of people enjoy them without knowing their provenance, do you think those people will care that they are enjoying something that doesn't meet your definition of art?

edit: to be clear, this is not a position that I enjoy taking. There's something "Brave New Worldish" about it. Or it's a depressing version of the Turing Test.

I read novels I don't give a damn about the author (in fact I usually remember the title of the novels, and their story... but not the author). So, a robot making amazing stories to read? I'm in.

I realized, it's the same about music. I like songs, but then I don't really know very well the bands/authors (nor care about them).

That's not how things used to be.

Some of my younger colleagues can't even tell me the name of what they're listening to, because they only encountered it in passing and can't say "Oh yes, that song by Bill Withers is amazing..." because they just listened to it as background.

That's not how things used to be.

Some people approach movies/music/books etc. as entertainment and some people approach them as Art. Neither is right or wrong, but it does fundamentally affect how you consume and judge them. A lot of the reasons people talk past each other in these discussions is that they have rather different 'use cases' for movies/music/books. If you consider music and books as entertainment then it makes no difference how it's produced as long as it entertains. If you consider them art then it makes a much bigger difference.

Not at all. More concretely, if we do the same experiment on music: I have no clue who made most of the music I listen to. The artist means nothing to me.

That makes you part of the precipitate.

What do you mean?

The artist means nothing to me.

Honest question. If the artist means nothing to you, do you still judge their work as art, or do you consider music more as entertainment?

Reminds me a bit of the Jorge Luis Borges short story on the author trying to re-write, word for word, Don Quixote, and whether that would be a greater artistic achievement even than the original. After all, Cervantes lived in those times, but the modern author would have to invent (or re-capture) the historical details, idioms, customs, language, and characters that are very much of the times.

I think, from Borges' perspective, it's supposed to be an interesting satire. Obviously there would not be an original word in the new Don Quixote, so how could it be a greater achievement than the "real" one?

Honestly I think that would make me more interested in the story, not less.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com