> I would really like an objective explanation of why this attitude "that the whole point of art is the process of making it" is anything but pretentiousness in it's purest form.
i think that's a problem - i am no philosopher or art historian, but i truly can't think of "objective" truths of any kind when i think about art, the process of making art, or the process of engaging with art. it's nice to make art. i play around with synthesizers and it... makes me feel more like a human being, i guess? when i record music or do amateur photography i've actualized myself somehow. something that wouldn't have existed otherwise now exists because of my actions, and that's enjoyable to experience. i imagine one could argue "you still created something that wouldn't have existed when you prompt an AI!" but it just doesn't feel the same, and i struggle to explain why
> And even if one supposes that a key part of the value is self-exploration
i think a lot of value is the context of the art itself - picasso going insane, the protests leading up to the tank man photo, aphex twin's cheetah, jesse krimes being in prison, whatever. maybe this is just me, but when i go to museums the extra information in the labels or audio descriptions is where i find most of the joy and fascination that makes the artworks meaningful to me. AI art feels contextless
> Surely the actual artifact itself has some value?
genuinely - have you encountered AI-generated art that you find valuable? that you tell other people about or have kept a copy of for yourself somehow?
i’d argue yes, definitely. those blogs are, at least historically, written by real people with individual taste and preferences that you can use to understand their critique. one might find themselves agreeing with Siskel, and not Ebert.
reading a review is not the same level of passivity as something being algorithmically inserted into your existing Spotify playlists (“smart shuffle”) or something else that will inevitably be used to shut out artists to juice quarterly reports
to be clear, i'm not a doctor or an expert, just a person with gasto problems - maybe to elaborate a little from my original comment: i think everyone over 40 should be screened (with a colonoscopy or other non-procedure testing) for colon cancer, full stop. then, say, every five or ten years depending on the results?
i also believe pre-screening (stool sample testing, mostly) is getting better, which would potentially help categorize who does and does not need an actual colonoscopy in the future
these are all US stats[0], which i'd imagine is a broadly worse-off group than the UK in terms of like, ultraprocessed foods and other risk factors, but this stood out to me:
> Lifetime Risk of Developing Cancer: Approximately 4.0 percent of men and women will be diagnosed with colorectal cancer at some point during their lifetime, based on 2018–2021 data, excluding 2020 due to COVID.
anecdotally, i think with gastro problems there's a lot of individual latitude where serious problems might go undetected, under-reported, or assumed to have a less serious cause - i also think (but do not know) that colon cancer develops slowly, which may mean there's a long potential where it could be caught, detected, or risks flagged early by a colonoscopy, which, to me, outweighs the risks of "serious complications" from the procedure
i was actually confused about this for a long time - i always thought my colonoscopies were "general" because i... couldn't remember anything, but all of them were really just propofol "twilight," which is just a deep sleep, i guess? i only learned this when i got a real surgery and had to actually go under general, it's a much more involved thing where you're essentially put in a coma
i'm not sure if it's a US thing but i think especially if they're going to take biopsies you're put under twilight, which is one step below general - i don't remember anything about any of the ones i've had, and wake up later in a recovery room
that's insane! everyone should get a colonoscopy, and i believe they're recommending them for people over 40 if you meet certain risk categories
signed up for an account with my real name to share a doc i've been working on for a long, long time now - i've had UC since high school, and have written an extensive guide of what i've learned, if it helps you or anyone else you know who might be getting scoped:
> That does not depend on any actual person being involved or any long drawn out process of creating the art.
okay, what art can you think of where the context of an artistic work doesn’t somehow boil down to the people that made it?