Art doesn’t have to fulfill a practical purpose nor does it usually have security vulnerabilities. Not taking a position on the substance, but these are two major differences between the two.
my point exactly. practical purpose and security are things you can analyze and solve for as a machine at least in theory. artistic value comes from the artistic intent. by intent I don’t mean to argue against death of the author, as I believe in it, but the very fact that there is intent to create art.
Art fulfills many practical purposes. You live in an abode designed by architects, presumably painted and furnished with many objects d’art such as, a couch, a wardrobe, ceiling fixtures, a bathtub; also presumably festooned with art on the walls; you cook and eat food in designed cookware, crockery and cutlery, and that food is frequently more than pure sustenance; and, presumably you spend a fair amount of time consuming media such as television, film, literature, music, comedy, dance, or even porn.
Art can be flawed. Programming is an exact set of instructions for a computer to comprehend in the most literal sense. There isn’t nearly as much room for errors. A hallucination during image generation won’t cause any damage. A hallucination regarding those very specific instructions can cause problems.
Armchair amateur here but there’s often a lot of talk about O(n), memory optimization, trash cleanup, compression methods, race conditions, vertex choice in matrices etc…
It reminds me of the neo-plasticists, whose argument was there is no significant difference between painting a farmer next to a pile of hay vs painting a pink square next to a yellow square: both are just arranging representative symbols on a canvas.
Art doesn’t have to fulfill a practical purpose nor does it usually have security vulnerabilities. Not taking a position on the substance, but these are two major differences between the two.
my point exactly. practical purpose and security are things you can analyze and solve for as a machine at least in theory. artistic value comes from the artistic intent. by intent I don’t mean to argue against death of the author, as I believe in it, but the very fact that there is intent to create art.
Art fulfills many practical purposes. You live in an abode designed by architects, presumably painted and furnished with many objects d’art such as, a couch, a wardrobe, ceiling fixtures, a bathtub; also presumably festooned with art on the walls; you cook and eat food in designed cookware, crockery and cutlery, and that food is frequently more than pure sustenance; and, presumably you spend a fair amount of time consuming media such as television, film, literature, music, comedy, dance, or even porn.
Art can be flawed. Programming is an exact set of instructions for a computer to comprehend in the most literal sense. There isn’t nearly as much room for errors. A hallucination during image generation won’t cause any damage. A hallucination regarding those very specific instructions can cause problems.
Programming is definitely not an exact science.
Armchair amateur here but there’s often a lot of talk about O(n), memory optimization, trash cleanup, compression methods, race conditions, vertex choice in matrices etc…
It reminds me of the neo-plasticists, whose argument was there is no significant difference between painting a farmer next to a pile of hay vs painting a pink square next to a yellow square: both are just arranging representative symbols on a canvas.
Yeah but what about those 18 toed porn girls with stumpy legs?