On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 11:58:29 PM UTC+2, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/6/2019 3:51 AM, PGC wrote: > > Now, if we could just formalize aesthetics: what makes a theorem > > interesting or sexy as fuck? > > We could train an ANN to have the same aesthetics as the NYT art > critic. :-) > > NYT art critics lol... They are disqualified! Critics are artists who gave up and should in this sense be recognized as the least qualified to write about useless beautiful lies.
They stopped believing the lies and became serious pursuers of truth which demotes them to lower than armchair status! They now believe their own performances of themselves hook, line, and sinker, which should always end in the character making a royal ass of themselves. Exception: they've worked in porn or for the US president where making a royal ass of oneself becomes a virtue and a source of wealth. How many NYT art critics have porn production or working for the current US president in their career history? Their responses should be processed by ANNs. Not the vanilla art critics'. The ANN not of truth, the ANN of grit! Persevering on the lie with statements like: "it was MY lie, you fucks! I lied it my way!" We don't know what problem this, our ANN solves but it's responses at the moment seem smart as fuck, which could be progress on the road to "sexiness of interest". Yes Philip, this may be related to breeding indeed. Thanks for posting that. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/280968e6-a57d-4dba-ae6b-0195d472e790%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
