And I'm out. She lost me. This is nonsense. The audience decides what is "art" is. If something created by an AI moves an audience, or makes it think, it's art. And all of these things are skills that can be developed. They are not inborn. Yikes. What a terrible representative to put forward.
If your friends are the same, then you might believe that nobody ever got good at anything by sheer force of will - which is itself a talent that some learn along the way.
It's the hare telling us that the tortoise lost the race, only because they have been napping.
There are things in my life I was instantly good at. There are ones where I had to work my ass off. I get equal praise for both and it galls me because people assume that both skillsets required the same effort. One set was a pursuit and the other was a mission. An ordeal.
Wisdom has accumulated from both, but only one of them made me a better person.
Jason didn't peak until well into his 30's. If they don't argue about this it's because Jason realizes that winning that argument will just hurt his older sister more than letting her say stupid shit (when you convince someone their whole life is a lie, it doesn't often go well).
If Muggsy Bogues was born with an average athletic ability, rather than what he was born with, he probably wouldn't have been able to make his high school team.
The reason most professionals are physical freaks is because nobody but those people can get that edge, and professional sports is about finding every edge you can get.
Art (at least since impressionism) is mostly about subjective feelings. Professional sports are about pre-set rules and objectives. You are either a faster or a slower running than Bolt. There is little to no interpretation. Even if your underdog performance against Bolt moved the audience, you still lost the race.
People also differ in how much context they are able to hold in their working memory (which affects debugging more than coding per-se, but still).
While these and other aspects of human cognition are somewhat malleable and subject to improvement through practice, there are limits, and some folks just aren't going to ever be good software engineers, no matter how hard they try.
> [AI can make people] feel like, “they are artists too,” in heavy quotes, which is not true.
> Many people, they’d like to imply that they are gifted at coding by giving the generative AI a solution to that.
In her view, if you create great art, a great video game, a great piece of software—or really anything at all I suppose—with the help of AI then you're a fraud and you should feel bad. I guess a bunch of people had similar thoughts when artists (yes, artists) started making music with computers without even knowing how to read sheet music or play a musical instrument, but look at all the creativity that came out of that.
Nobody is born anything.
Nobody is born a slave, a criminal, a prodigy, a prophet, an athlete, an intellectual, an iconoclast, etc..
Every moment a person is born is an opportunity for us to be surpassed or ashamed.
What a disgusting gatekeeping statement.
The only thing people are born anything as are maybe royalty, which is an entirely different disgusting enterprise.
Maybe I am channeling too much OnePiece 1096.
Identical twins separated at birth can have vastly separate outcomes. Nurture >>> nature pretty definitively.
Next thing I notice, someone is gonna post a gwern style response on IQ ridiculousness.
How cursed it must to be so growth oriented with a fixed mindset.