[ta8645]

> A Komatsu forklift doing the same is not ... [worthy of attention]

It is, if you're managing a warehouse; then it's a wonderful marvel. And it is a hidden benefit to everyone who receives cheaper products from that warehouse. Nobody cares if it's a human or the Komatsu doing the heavy lifting.

[latexr]

You just made me realise why many people have trouble with analogies, to the point it seems they are arguing in bad faith. You have to consider the context the analogy is being applied to.

It is patently obvious (though clearly not to every one) that the person you’re replying to is describing a situation of seeing a human weightlifter VS a mechanical forklift doing the same in a contest, for entertainment. The analogy works as a good example because it maps to the original post about art.

When you change the setting to a warehouse, you are completely ignoring all the context and trying to undermine the comment on a technicality which doesn’t relate at all to the point. If you want to engage with the analogy properly, you have to keep the original art context in mind at all times.

[ta8645]

And you're failing to understand that people can understand the analogy, and think that it fails to capture the entire situation, and so extend the analogy to make it obvious (although clearly not to everyone) that the analogy is lacking, and not very convincing.

[latexr]

> people can understand the analogy, and think that it fails to capture the entire situation, and so extend the analogy to make it obvious (although clearly not to everyone) that the analogy is lacking, and not very convincing.

Of course, that could definitely happen. My point is that I don’t think it did in this case, and that it stretched the analogy so far beyond its major points, that it made it clear to me a pattern that I have seen several times before but could never pinpoint clearly.

I am grateful to that comment for the insight. Understanding how people may distort analogies will force me to create better ones for more productive discussions.

[ta8645]

There was no distortion. You seem to want people to only take the desired implication, and not think too much more about it. But if you instead think for a second, you'll see that the analogy was crafted to send a message that is incorrect and limited. Rather than trying to create better analogies to handcuff a reader into your viewpoint, you might instead stop for a moment and see why this analogy wasn't actually as insightful as it might appear at first glance. And maybe even appreciate how my response shed light about that limitation. There are indeed people who get great entertainment out of machines that do heavy lifting, and they don't care how much a person can lift.

[latexr]

> the analogy was crafted to send a message that is (…) limited.

All analogies are limited. That’s the point of an analogy: to focus on a shared element.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/978019...

> There are indeed people who get great entertainment out of machines that do heavy lifting, and they don't care how much a person can lift.

But crucially not the person making the analogy. They didn’t say a lifting machine would be uninteresting to everyone, only that it isn’t worth their (the commenter’s) time. They made an analogy to explain what they themselves think, not to push their point of view as ultimate universal truth.

[ta8645]

And my reply was to expand the context to show that there are people who feel otherwise. And yet you insist that my opinion is illegitimate and a "distortion". You've dug your heels in, and refuse to see that you had blinders on.

[Henchman21]

A deliberate misreading is not the same as engaging with the analogy in good faith and your reply here seems to indicate that you’ve done the former while simultaneously engaging in some name calling.

[ta8645]

What name calling?

[cesarb]

> You have to consider the context the analogy is being applied to.

But that particular reply did not constrain itself to the context. It implied that a forklift lifting 150kg is not interesting at all. Which offends those of us who do appreciate watching heavy machinery do its work. That explains the unavoidable kneejerk replies of "actually, it is [interesting]".

[npteljes]

I think this is actually a good counterpoint to something that OP missed. It's not that it's not great that a Komatsu can also do it. Both are great. But we need to have the appropriate expectations, to end up with the feeling of appreciation. In the AI case, the art looks like "human art", and often it's also presented as such. Then, learning that actually AI did it is akin to betrayal. But actually people like to appreciate a whole lot of artful things that people didn't, or only partially "did": electronic music, the sounds and visuals of nature, emergent behavior of things like the game of life, visual output of algorithms, and so on.

[teddy-smith]

Well warehouse mangers excluded....