Simblifying AI-generated art Part 2 [the implications]

I, V, M. the creative, the misinformation, all that is something that we hope to talk about today. And joining me to talk about the future of art are two good friends who are kind of like art movements themselves. Firstly, he's made of relatively small brush strokes is quite open.

He's always depicted with the right light, uses movement as a crucial element and was once harshly criticized in France. He's an impressionist, he's just impressive. The Monet of Mallard Narendra Chanhaw. Thank you.

And second, we have the man with an emphasis on the individual clandestine literature, idealization of nature. Skeptical of industrialization like all good malus, do you mean romanticism? Sort of, he's a romantic, the one and only, to me, so best it. Yay.

What a intro. And Shri Ke is not around this time. He is like, Banksy, he is missing. He's not something that let's go with that.

So, yeah, gentlemen, this is basically a follow up to what we had done last time. We've been speaking a lot on the show of late about technology, impact on culture and new art forms and things like that. So, yeah, I just thought we'd have a discussion on this. So, what were your first thoughts?

I don't know, Raine had some which he raised during the episode itself. When you heard about this, like, OK, machines can now generate art that is perhaps not as good as a best artist, but probably better than humans can make on average art in that fraction of the time. Like, what is your reaction like? Was it panic?

Was it thrill? Was it? My thing was, you know, it sort of makes you think about nature of art itself, right? So, what is art?

And we've come a long way. So, back in the day, art used to mean very realistic depiction of things. The more realistic it was, the better the artist was. And then when the camera came along, realism became a little redundant.

And then people started experimenting with, you know, expressing what they felt, because to get another step forward, where he introduced elements of cubism and something else. And now I'm sure... Cubism is when you paint three of the same picture. You should make art, but actually we should simplify art.

That would be the obvious. That's a really good topic. Yeah, that's a really good topic. If there's anyone out there who knows the topic, so that he can do research, please get in.

If you think about art, so art has a couple of dimensions. So, one is it is the artist expressing himself, herself, in whatever medium he chooses. And if you've got AI to generate that, and that's not the expression of any one, any human, is it art at all? So, that's number one.

Okay, that's a bit like saying in the tree fell in the forest, no one heard it, the tree fell in it. That level of question. And the second one is, art is also something which gives you some kind of meaning, pleasure, insight into the human condition, whatever many different variations. And if AI-generated art gives you any of those or some of those, then is it fair to not call it?

So, it's one of those, you know, damned if you are and damned if you aren't kind of situations. It's good you said that because it kind of makes me feel like that with every advancement in art technology, we slightly are going backwards and backwards in a good way and asking ourselves more fundamental questions, right, about what art actually means, right. There was one point of time when the best technology of the day or art meant painting, right. And I'm sure that is not for a lot of people as well, right.

Like, oh, you're committing memory to this thing, you should go to the place and experience the person or whatever the case may be. And then along came the camera and people would say, oh, this is killing artists or whatever, whatever, you know, whatever, and then you had bones that were able to take photos and people said, oh, the value of the photographer will get devalued and all that. In all of these cases, it kind of makes me feel like we are dissociating art from a particular form, be it painting or be it photography, be it digital paintings, which also had that kind of criticism, you know, digital people were criticizing digital artists at one point of time saying, hey, it's so easy to create images on Photoshop or whatever it is. What's the value of actual hand-drawn sort of things anymore?

And now it seems that this new technology, the Dali has come along, or AI has come along. And it's almost like every time there is a new thing that clumps all the others together, if that kind of makes sense. And I'm kind of wondering what a next technology that will come along is that will put Dali in the same camp as photographers, digital artists and all that, if that kind of, you know, that kind of makes sense. I think we once had this discussion on simplified long back, I was discussing with either Tony or Shri Keap, is if you look at the evolution of music formats, right?

Don't worry, Tony, I'm not going to talk about music by, like... No, I was actually going to ask you a question about music, but go ahead. Tell you the point that I was making. Like every new format of music delivery, not the music itself, has been criticized by saying that it's killing music and it's going to kill creativity and whatnot.

Right, when the vinyl came along or the earliest records came along, they said things like, oh, it's going to devalue live performances, then came along the cassette, they criticized it for sound quality or something like that. So, suddenly the other two were together, live performances and records were together. Then along came the CD and then, oh, this is like new digital stuff and it's not good to sound as good as the other. So now the other three were together.

And then along came the MP3 and now suddenly all the others came together in a new category called physical media and then they were clumped together. And then came screaming and then suddenly all the others were together and this thing called, okay, you used to pay for music and all that and now you're getting everything available for free. So it seems like with every new technology or a new way of experiencing art, be it like images or whatever the case may be, it seems like there's a new category of others that is created, if that kind of makes sense. And when you were saying that, it kind of felt like the same kind of evolution all over again.

People like this, always criticism of a new model and they have no doubts that whatever Dali or the whole thing becomes tomorrow, Dali will be one of the, oh, that was the way things were done before or something of that sort. Mike, that's a future way of future cleaning. We are looking at it. Is that anywhere close to what you had in mind, Tony?

Yeah, I mean, some of it, I mean, it's obviously fascinating if we haven't used it, this thing. My actions sort of thought was before Dali, there was GPT-3, I think. And the moment when it really was amazing for me was when GPT-3 could write coherent text and novels and all right, purely because the grammar of the written text is more apparent to me than the grammar of art. So Dali, it seems like, okay, whatever, but GPT-3 was like, man, it's amazing.

And the one says that you have to get right in the written world as opposed to visual art, where you can still say, oh, that's artistic license and not necessarily a visual typo. Exactly. Yeah, I mean, at least the grammar is more apparent to me. But like art also, I'm sure there is grammar and if someone's one in art context, it's probably followed those rules.

I mean, at least broad constructs off, right? And so like the very first simplified episode I was on was about crosswords where I said, like, you know, quick crosswords can be set by a machine, but cryptic crosswords can't be because it has to like the crafting of the clue is a difficult one. And at that point, I seriously questioned, okay, I mean, I don't think that statement is valid anymore. It's only a matter of time before they figure it out, right?

And for art, it didn't really strike me as much. But in terms of music, right, what I want to ask you, obviously, the form has changed significantly, but is there like AI generated music? And basically it will probably reach a state where it will be able to find the correct hook step and all of that, right? Yeah, in fact, in fact, that's already happening.

Now, somebody had recreated, not recreated, somebody had trained itself on Beethoven's music and created a new symphony. So I think sometime last year, this was where Beethoven's first song in whatever, 200 or 300 years or something, that came out. And I think somebody also created a few Beatles songs based on the same principle. And again, it's quite interesting when these sort of things happen.

So this is happening. So AI created music is already happening for the same reasons that you can think of. Yeah, but my question was like, was there like outrage when, let's say you moved from acoustic instruments to electronic? Yeah, that's bad.

100% this was definitely there. So when you moved from acoustic guitars to electric guitars, for instance, this was a big issue. In fact, there's this famous story of Bob Dylan being ostracized at a music festival because he dared show up with an electric guitar. This is as recent as the 1960s we're talking about.

So this whenever there's something that makes it easier for musicians to translate what's in their head into actual music, there is kind of an out-of-the-art kind of traditional rock snob looks down upon electronic music because to them is just about, you know, oppressing a button and beats happen. Sure, that's one simplistic way of looking at electronic music. But if that's a token by which you're judging this music, then you can say the same thing for a lot of other things as well before this. Like the rock and roll that this snob possibly admires couldn't have been made possible without a lot of studio trickery.

In fact, like right behind me is a poster of the Beatles with all their albums and their most famous albums of their most groundbreaking work was, I would say 50% studio, 50% creativity. The second 50% wouldn't have happened without their genius to put it together. But a lot of the sounds, a lot of the things that made the songs were because of the various kinds of studio trickery that they ended up creating. So this kind of outrage, this kind of discussion, this kind of confusion, etc.

has always been there. I'm interested to ask me this question right now because I'm actually reading a book on the history of music right now. And it's not a very linear, this is a safe, it's a safe, it's a safe, it's a safe reading of music about the history of music, yeah fair enough. But what's interesting about this is that it's a subversive history of music.

So it's not about, okay this style, let this style is more about music has always been music and I'm guessing artists as well has always been pushed forward by the outliers. And that ends up becoming the mainstream. And he gives the example of how blues was initially played by ostracized communities or by the, you know, whatever the blacks or whoever was the white folk who didn't listen to. Since it was kind of illegal and cool, the young white kids co-opted and eventually became part of mainstream culture to the point where the Beatles were, you know, pretty huge.

The rock and roll in general was pretty huge. The artists who were rebels at one point of time ended up being mited and whatever getting all sorts of awards and mainstream acceptance and things like that. His point being, whatever you know, whatever these kind of stories that you're hearing, it is not a 21st and 20th century phenomenon. And he then rewinds back to how it was in the days of Beethoven, Mozart and all that.

And he says this kind of rebellion, this kind of outsider perspective was always in the whoever was big in music was always an outsider at one point of time, other art form was outsider outside one point of time. They would always do something that would be outside the traditional norm. So and that would always talk discussion, debate. So yeah, I hope that answers the question.

I'm not quite sure whether it did. But I have one more angle on this. I have one more angle on this. So Tony spoke about cryptic crossword clues versus quick crossword clues, right?

So quick crossword clues, obviously, they are very, it's very linear. You just define it and but cryptic crosswords, you know, in order to be a good cryptic crossword clue, not only does it have to be cryptic, it has to be very minimal, elegant and also solvable in some way. No point in having such a difficult clue that no one can ever solve. Yeah.

So there is a logic to it and you can make out an amateur setting clues. Yeah. There are too many, you know, so there are ways you signal an anagram or there are ways you signal a homo name. So you put all a bunch of signals you over, you know, over signal, you know, you become the clunky.

And so my point is that in something like a crossword clue, because it is so complex, but uncomplicated. So complicated and complex are different things. Right. So it is far more difficult to have an AI do this.

And on the other hand, if you think about music, there are some genres of music. Very complicated, like a symphony or a piece of rock music, which has a lot of riffs and a lot of beats and a lot of, you know, metal would be one category. There's a lot of things going on. And those things I would imagine are very difficult for human mind to unpack it.

So you just you're just a one metric. Do you like it or not? Yeah. And that is much easier for an AI to generate.

But somebody just, you know, like old style, really old style blues or a gospel song, which is just coming from somebody's Spain, you just, you just singing, would an AI be able to generate that? I'd imagine it to be less likely. So is that a dimension? So even the visual arts, like, you know, painting and things of that if there's a lot, there's always a lot of stuff.

And then there's a lot of background scenery, it's just like the other. It's easier for AI to pass off as human, but would an AI pass off in the less complicated ones? Yeah, I think that's a great point. And I think it actually wraps up what we said right now, be it music, be it art, be it text, be it crossword, what are the case?

Maybe I think AI will do a great job of doing a okay job, if that kind of makes sense. Like, actually the Tony's analogy of simple crossword and cryptic crosswords are great. I think AI would do a great job of setting a very good, simple crossword, but then for that nuance, for in music's case, it probably will write a great pop song that will like rule the radio for one day, but it won't have staying power. I don't see AI having the power to write something that's going to challenge thinking for generations, like an album like the Dark Side of the Moon or Sajin Pepper's everville.

So the Beatles tracks when I heard them back, they sounded like the Beatles. If I'd heard them, they would be like, yeah, okay, the sounds like the Beatles, but it's something that I would come back to. It's not something like to me, what excites me about the Beatles is that each song sounds similar. At the same time, there's a new element to it.

They try something different each time. There's something there's a weirdness to each, you know, and I guess that's also the hallmark of a great artist who keeps trying to push them and try to evolve the format. I don't think an AI will be able to do that just yet, but then it's very early days in this whole AI creating art movement. Maybe that's the next stage, but yeah, I think that's a great job of base level.

Probably. So I think any industry and this art in general, be it music or be it visual or even text for that matter, I think AI will do a great job and will be used in a lot of situations where nuance is not needed. Maybe you just need like a stock image or some music for the elevator or whatever. It's time for us to put the three together text to visual and music and say, can AI create ads and like, oh, wow, that is a high point of human creativity.

Yeah, but I think to some extent it can be only. And if you already see it today, it's happening. So if you see Google search ads and I'm seeing simplest possible ads. So if anyone has searched for anything on Google, you would have probably seen those sponsored results on top of the ads.

Right. What happens today? Like, no, forget today. This was this happened two, three years ago.

You can enter a number of options and Google will then mix and match a number of these to see which one, which combination of these work, best for which audience, which time of the day, etc. This extremely rudimentary, I don't even know if it is AI per se or machine learning per se. But it's a very simple example of how machines can or technology can optimize very low involvement kind of ad. Now, can AI create an ad that might end up being shown on the Super Bowl or Vina Khan someday?

That I'm not quite sure of just yet, but it's probably a great job of taking the performance marketing. Yeah, performance marketing. Yeah, like a lot of the, a lot of the, but like I still remember, this is, I think, till a few years ago, Google had so many different visual art for sizes. You know, you had to create 10 or 15 different banner sizes for a single creative because of all these sizes that Google had.

And our poor designers had to sit and make all seven of them, adapts, you used to call them. And then along Google itself came up with this, and saying, you just supply us two or three images, you supply us text, we will do the, you know, whatever. No, go down to the logo. The logo and the logo.

And our designers he was, I believe, because what it meant for them is that they're working go down. In fact, they were just able to work on better creatives for other formats and all that. So I guess that's one way of how it's how AI, I don't know if this is AI cosy, but technology is being used in advertising, but I'm not only what you meant to was something bigger than that. Yeah.

It's a description of that. I think in a densue in Japan or something had hired their first AI copywriter or something like that. They said it was too long. No, I'm sure you'll see one award submission somewhere along saying this was created by AI.

The AI submission itself was, yeah, for all your GPT itself, it's self-in-award. Same. This was a little bit like this is proof of concept. You want results pitch this is the result.

I'd imagine that AI would also be a great help or great thing in situations where brainstorming is required. So, you know, you're thinking of a out-of-the-box campaign and maybe, you know, AI could, yeah, it could even replace marijuana. Yeah, I've seen multiple places there. I've seen multiple play-bao, did not actually, did not see that happening.

I've seen multiple places, people saying that AI generated art can actually be a great brainstorming tool. Like if you have an idea, you just want to see what it looks like and maybe that's box of something else. So, that could possibly be a thing. You know, the other aspect to discuss about AI generated art is what kind of new professions or what kind of new art itself can we expect as a result of this.

Like when the camera came around, everyone thought that portrait drawers would possibly vanish, which maybe they did, but a lot of people became photographers or image editors or whatever the case, maybe every new technology or art form or whatever technological art form has brought along with it a new set of professionals. It will kind of be interesting to see what new creative professions or even creative formats. Something like AI generated art has, where somebody with zero drawing skills can generate interesting good images. Now, what is this mean for creativity overall?

One of my designer friends, Rayba, she has started creating comics that are based on comics, which follow a certain theme, but all the images are developed by mid-journey. I think it's what she uses and she has wrapped this entire thing in a very interesting reels kind of format, which talks about the story of some alien that has come to the planet Earth or something like that. It's kind of interesting to see how various people are already using this very nascent technology. There are some people who have used Dali's images and created stock motion art.

You have a model walking down the road and the clothes are completely changing in the space of about 10-15 seconds. There are people who are saying that prompt writing is going to be a new skill. If everyone has access to the same tool, then what sets it apart is how well you can prompt Dali to create a better image. So for all, professional prompt writer might be a huge job description of you years down the line once Dali becomes three-dimensional, video in nature.

So yeah, it's kind of interesting to think about where this could go and what forms it could lead to. I'm fascinated to take one more time to use the word that's not been here before. No, but so basically currently it's owned by someone or it's just like... Yeah, it's owned by...

So Dali too is owned by OpenAI, who I think now has started selling licenses, I forget how much, but yeah, now it is. OpenAI is very openly being a for-profit company. So they have always been... This is something that they eventually plan to monetize.

There are others that are open source for now. I think Bijani is open source also. There is also a subscription based on that. I mean all this computing power, obviously.

For Bijani for those who are interested, you can actually go to the mid-journey site. They will be taken directly to Discord Server. And everyone who signs up is allowed to 25 free uses after which you need to pay. I forget what the amount is, $5 a month or something like that.

So yeah, there are open source alternatives. Some of those open source alternatives are also kind of dangerous because they don't have as much restriction as OpenAI does. Like in the last episode, he's ended kind of like by saying that OpenAI's data set doesn't use out-activity, legal content, porn and all that. There are some that don't have such restrictions.

So now you have questions about free speech and all that coming into the picture. So that's the thing. There are just so many... There are just so many angusages.

And one more rights-based issue is post-one of us as an artist. Suppose Naren, you were a famous painter and your style is very sought after and all that. So suppose using mid-journey tomorrow, somebody says, I want to create this scenery in the style of Naren the Shenoy and they have what is a very possible original Monet from Malad. So now how should you feel about that?

Should you feel flattered that somebody's replicating your style? Should you feel you have possibly lost potential 10,000 to these because you didn't sell a painting? As there are some artists who believe that it is their right for their style to be opted out of tools like this, which then brings us to another question. What is patentable?

Is the style patentable? And all that sort of thing. Because if you go to mid-journey today, you can do things like do this in the style of the Simpsons, for example. Very cool from a play around.

But eventually what does that mean? Like should Matt grinning and 21st century Fox should they feel like, okay, this is a slippery slope from this to illegal episode that we never released. Again, the question about deepfakes and this information all that come into play over here. So like I said, more questions and answers really.

One thing about technology is this. So once you have the tools, all kinds of people are going to use them. You can't stop those being used. Just like deepfakes in the hands of the wrong sort of people could actually, I don't know, they could probably start World War III and considerably if or a small riot or whatever it is.

And there's no way you can stop it. The only way is when people like WhatsApp University, right? So every nonsense gets passed around. I get the feeling, at least in my sort of, you know, Uncle Anti-Circle that all WhatsApp users now, you know, news is just taken with us.

Very, very small, great of salt. So maybe they learn that way, but it is concerning for sure. And so that's one. Yeah, one is ideological.

One is commercial misuse. One is commercial. You have artists or people being cheated out of things. It's too hazy for anyone, least of all ecologically dumb, simplified hosts to make any kind of predictions.

I also was taken by something interesting that you said at the beginning, which was what is art actually mean to us? Like if you take it to sort of like the logical extreme, like, would you, like when you have a nice home and you take care of whatever, you very thoughtfully place everything that's in your home, would you have mid-journey developed image printed out and put in a prime place on your wall, or would you want to put image that you have paid maybe rationally $10,000 or something like that for, because it signals something and all that. And I think it is going to somehow differ to the latter. And in some way, I think every technology that is supposed to destroy a certain profession, especially creatively, has ended up making that profession the best people in that profession more valuable, if that kind of makes sense, right?

There aren't that. No, but my point about, yeah, my point about also putting up a painting in your house, then it's not art. It's a show piece. It's a show piece.

So that's so art is used as a show piece. So that's fine. And putting up on expensive piece of art, because it's expensive and it's not art is something, it's a signal of your prosperity or whatever it is you want to show. But there is another big category of art, which means you, right?

So art, the work of art, the work of good literature, the work of good music is to move you. And now the question is, does it mean that because it is machine generated, it cannot move you? And if it does move you, does it make a difference that it is machine generated? So I'm not a good question.

Exactly. That can any of these tools be it AI generated music, be it mid-journey images. I think we all agree that it can serve a functional purpose. It goes back to the point we made some it serves a functional purpose, but then can it do something higher than that?

Can it move? You can it inspire you? Is it something that you want to like stare at? And yeah, I think that's interesting.

And I don't think my guess is it's not there yet. Now, whether it will actually get there, who knows? Like it can generate a beautiful image for sure. But I think questions like this really makes humanity look more at itself.

This one more dimension. One more dimension is this. Does the knowledge, okay, so I just show you an image, okay? I show 10 people I made, they found it very moving or they find it nice or it stirs them up in some way.

Then I show another 10 people that image and say that this is artificially generated by a machine. Will it then move them? And if I say that this was made by a starving artist who was very famous and he died without recognition, well that means. So humans are so complex.

There is a famous, there is a famous, not exactly your point, but there are these videos of world famous musicians who are performing as buskers and people just pass them by. And then you find these viral videos of Instagram saying this guy charges $10,000 a seat or whatever, and he's just playing here. And so it's I mean, their point being the setting really matters, the setting signaling and all that is. Yeah, it's interesting.

Yeah, so many questions. I mean, beyond the functional day, like one aspect is when we say functional, we sort of want to say it's probably not high art, but at the same time, a lot of commercial things are not necessarily high art. Like if you look at every superhero movie or every Pixar movie, the formula is the same. It just stands the setting, right?

Like the story arc is the same. So therefore, like very true. I mean, I imagine that an A can generate something that is widely popular, may not be high art, but it is in that sense possible. Yeah, I think so.

I completely agree. In fact, I take your point about music and I know you touched upon that. It can probably look at what the last 10 years biggest hits were isolated certain bits. See, we got okay, the chorus needs to come over here.

The tempo needs to be this and create a perfectly good track that will rule the airwaves for a month or a week. But I would go one step further and say it's going to last only for a month. It won't have staying power. I don't think like all these movies are huge blockbusters or hits, but I don't think people in 10 years are going to be talking about the last Avengers movie, the way we still talk about like Donna setting movie, like whatever the godfather or maybe the first Avengers movie or something of that sort.

And in fact, you can already see this happening, not with machines, but with humans. Like this is a very interesting study that somebody did who said that if you see Spotify's talk hits in the last few years, all of them were super huge for a very short period of time because they followed the formula of what will work. But there's nothing memorable after that. In fact, the for three years or four years in a row, the top show song was in shape of you possibly the last good popular song to be written.

And for a period of four years, it's not like they want other million streaming or billion streaming songs. So and this is with human brains working with, okay, this is what the market seems to like. So to your point, absolutely. I think you will definitely have old genre of AI generated leave brain at home kind of movies.

And if that's what that's what works and great, the way I look at it, democratize the movie. If it means that people can watch this kind of movie for 20 rupees, so they may not be getting high or whatever it is, or whatever, or whatever, a classic or something at the end of it. But if it means that more people have access to entertainment, right? So be it.

I mean, that's the way I look at it. Yeah, it's a utilitarian sort of argument for anything is if it gives a happiness to a lot of people, then by definition, that is good. And there are problems with that because sometimes there might be really nasty things and just because, you know, the masses like it. So yeah, it's complicated by and you can almost imagine that this will be customized also.

So to take your thought experiment only even forward, I might have an AI that generates movies to please me the way I very specifically want it by going through my text. I mean, to some extent, they're all exactly right. But I'm going to see me interactive as well. Yeah, it can be.

Everyone starts over the same first thing. You know, whenever you talk about all these future scenarios, if you think about it, there's already some aspect of it which you're seeing today. Like, for example, like personalized movies, if that seems outrageous, you just need to open up our respective Netflix, and I'm sure all of us have three completely different screens. And that's one step towards okay, having a customized show of your own.

So yeah, I think all this is kind of possible in the future. And I think we will touch upon that many, many times in the future in the show. We'll just take another break right here and we will be back before you know it. And now back to simplified.

Actually, in one way, now if you I'm not a big fan of Bollywood, but off late, I mean, it's always been the case, but off late because probably because the stakes have gotten bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. And the money stakes, you find this tendency of movie makers trying to put anything in a movie just on the outside chance that we'll be able to someone. So there'll be one fight, there'll be a fancy one of the clothes, there'll be really popular music or music tracks which imitate the most popular. That's why you tend to see all Bollywood music, right?

It sort of tends to sound the same. And there was a time when everything was these crooning, what's that guy, Ankit Thiwari kind of thing, right? So he got a sleeper hit with one of his songs and every single song after that was a crooning. And then suddenly something else happened and then it all goes jingling, Jack, Jack and someone else is going that.

So yeah, in the hands of Bollywood, I predict that artificial intelligence is going to make same kind of movies. Who is to say it's not already happening? For all you know, there are actually no simplified hosts and we have just people that are actually just very good machines. That's one big feeling about ourselves, right?

We may be bad hosts, but we are very good machines. Maybe this one machine with one machine. Just one machine with three different voices. In this video, in this particular episode, I'll link out Vox video where different artists are actually reacting to a future with Dali.

And there's some very nice interesting thoughts over there. It's 15 minute videos, definitely worth a watch. Some of the quotes I'm just going to read out from there. Like if everyone can make these kind of images, what's the new currency?

Like is it ideas that was kind of interesting? Some people might want to create art the old age as for the fun of it, which again, I think is kind of interesting. One person reckons that because you have a tool like Dali that can recreate the styles of previous artists, ironically, this is actually going to lead to a renewed interest in learning more about art styles and all that. And I think that I actually already see that happening a lot.

I've actually seen more of Anko on my timeline because of Dali, you know, in a world without it. So that actually might very well be a thing. I find it interesting somebody who said this very interesting line, which is everything in art is a remix. Everything in art that you see or hear is built on top of something else.

This is absolutely true. That is so profound. You can trace its roots back to, forget rock music or whatever, you can trace it back to Beethoven and whatever, something evolved to something social. It's not just, oh, let's take the guitar and add this on top of it.

It's a lot more social, a lot more political. It's very interesting. And I think the same thing for art as well, what we call art is just keeps evolving. I think that line was very interesting.

What everything in art is a remix. Very profound. There's another person who actually, this is an Anko I never thought about Anko right there, sometimes reading YouTube comments actually can be a good thing. There's a person who actually said he's a blind person and he's been waiting all his life for a technology like this.

And by this, I mean Dali too. And I'm just going to read that comment. It's quite profound. I feel like my attempt to get my YouTube channel going or create other types of media have been hindered by not being able to create or select visuals for my content.

I recognize and empathize with the concerns of the art community, but I also encourage people to consider how tech like this could open a whole new world of inclusiveness, allowing blind people to fully participate in visual art in a way they could not before. I think that was beautiful. I never considered the angle until I saw this. And who knows what other kinds of art styles will come along, which will help impair people in other kind of ways.

I think this is very interesting. Yeah, that's actually one fundamental principle of inclusive design, that it makes it easier for everyone. Like the one example that's I think most commonly used is like if you have a door, should you have a door knob or a handle, right? And you as an able person would say either, right?

But if you think of an amputee, you would then say a handle, right? And how does it become easier for you if you're carrying two cups of coffee, which one would you prefer? Right? You'd prefer a door handle than a door knob, for instance.

So actually, like it's not thought of often enough in terms of design of anything is that being inclusive actually opens up the possibilities for everyone. And it's not supposed to do this. Yeah. We ended on a slightly deepish, thoughtful kind of note with it has been some annoying habit that we have got ourselves into of like, so not quite sure how to ask yourself from this.

So nothing you know what to do here. Yeah. I'm a big fan of chess, right? So back in the day, we used to get these chess books and you know, it's basically different books books and strategy books on tactics books on things like that.

You buy books and then you play. So there's this very delightful British writer named Gerald Abraham. So he has written a book on technique and chess, right? So technique, there are ways in certain chess positions where you don't really need to calculate everything.

You follow General Principal that will lead you on to win. So that was the basic central thesis of the book. And he's given back in that time, there were all these, so I'm talking about the early 80s. There were all these arch late 70s maybe and there were these Russian school, the Soviet school of chess, which was so subtle and so, you know, so sort of evolved that most of us ordinary folk wouldn't even understand why a particular move was played because in chess, otherwise either you're threatening something or you're paring a threat.

It's pretty aggressive and direct that way. But obviously, if your threat is very, very obvious, then the opponent can parry it. So the line that Gerald Abrahams has written is, there's a diagram and you have to find out the win. So he says, after hours of subtly threatening nothing, one of the players has suddenly emerged with an advantage.

Can you find out how to convert this into a win? So this is what I found very funny. After a picture that picture of garbage, something AI comes up with, something which is accidentally art. How do you deal with it?

So that's So in any case, I have gone on to be journey and I have asked it to develop a picture of ultra-craptarian and it's come out with a very scary looking four people agreed. That's also because all these generate four images at a go so that you can sort of like pick from their optimized. But still, it's quite scary. So I will possibly put that somewhere in the show notes or something of this episode.

So yeah, it's been fascinating. Gents has always high enjoyed these chats about what the future of culture, technology, all that will look at. We have accidentally actually made sense. I wouldn't go that far, but sure, let's go with that.

Let's go. Yeah, if you want to know what to do. So yeah, stay safe, stay futuristic and stay simplified.