[alansammarone]

It's seems clear that any content that advances the art is better than a content doesn't advance the art. I guess that what he meant is that global maxima is better than local maxima (which is clearly true), and data-driven vision is a hill climbing strategy, thus locking you into a local maxima.

[Lazare]

> It's seems clear that any content that advances the art is better than a content doesn't advance the art.

Better in what way?

Let's say Movie A is a well loved blockbuster that millions of people see and enjoy. Movie B is a very mixed piece that isn't really enjoyable to watch, but "advances the art" in some key ways. Movie C is an even more well loved blockbuster than movie A, which even more millions of people will see and enjoy, but that was only made because the director was one of the few that really understood Movie B.

The argument, as I understand it, is that Movie B is somehow objectively better than Movie A and Movie C, because it enables Movie C to exist, even though Movie C isn't actually good, because it doesn't advance the art? That doesn't make sense to me. The journey has value only to the extent that the destination is valuable, no? If C is trash, then what was the point of "advancing the art" enough that we could make C? (Conversely, if we're discussing "advancing the art" in a way that isn't required to make anything anyone wants to watch, then we're clearly not discussing finding a global maxima, right?)

[anigbrowl]

You're retroactively adding new premises (eg that Move C is crap) in order to support your conclusion. Step back from your post for a moment and you'll see it's based on a logical fallacy.

[walterbell]

B does not exist for the sake of C, which is profiteering from B.

B exists for D, which will be better than B.

Isn't this the history of progress in creative human activities?

[tormeh]

Sounds like an exploitation vs. exploration discussion. The correct answer is that both is worthless without the other; executing movies well is worthless without exploring new movie ideas and vice versa.

Given that we've been exploring for quite some time I guess exploitation is generally preferable if we had to choose.

Executing a movie with new ideas well is not an option as you're relying on the new idea being good i.e. dumb luck.

[baddox]

> It's seems clear that any content that advances the art is better than a content doesn't advance the art.

Perhaps that's true with all else being equal, but clearly all else isn't equal.

> I guess that what he meant is that global maxima is better than local maxima (which is clearly true), and data-driven vision is a hill climbing strategy, thus locking you into a local maxima.

My issue is that none of those examples are backed by any evidence that they are not doing a decent job of finding a global maximum.

[TheOtherHobbes]

It's true in the sense that what makes technology and culture interesting is invention, not endless recycling.

You're pretty much suggesting that using strong feedback to force culture to stay within a tiny area of the total possible cultural phase space is just as interesting as allowing chaotic exploration of the entire space.

It's not just an argument against creativity, it's an argument against invention in general.

>My issue is that none of those examples are backed by any evidence that they are not doing a decent job of finding a global maximum.

That's the thing about global maxima - you only know that you've found a global maximum if you've explored the entire space.

Otherwise you've just stumbled across a local attractor, and you're stuck in a loop around it.

This isn't even a good analogy, because cultural attractors are contingent, and they vary over time. They're also unpredictable.

The reason they capture attention isn't because they're maxima in some analytic sense. They become found maxima because they summarise some aspect of human experience, so they appeal to a lot of people at once.

The spectrum of possible maxima is mysterious and not understood, which is how you get - say - Harry Potter coming out of nowhere and captivating a generation.

Culture is music, not a sine wave. You don't just want a single signal - you want a mix of related-but-different signals running all the time.

[baddox]

> It's true in the sense that what makes technology and culture interesting is invention, not endless recycling.

That may very well be what makes technology and culture interesting to you. It's not necessarily what makes technology and culture interesting to everyone, or even a large portion of people.

> You're pretty much suggesting that using strong feedback to force culture to stay within a tiny area of the total possible cultural phase space is just as interesting as allowing chaotic exploration of the entire space.

I made no remarks even remotely suggesting any of those claims.

> That's the thing about global maxima - you only know that you've found a global maximum if you've explored the entire space.

That may be a useful statement for extremely small problem spaces. It's not useful for the problem space of films. There are a lot of different possible 90 minute long 1080p 24FPS 24-bit color films. Good luck performing a search over that problem space.

[TheOtherHobbes]

>That may very well be what makes technology and culture interesting to you.

Do you really prefer static, stagnating cultures to dynamic and inventive ones?

[collyw]

How do you advance art?

I am not very educated in the field of art. I always find orders of magnitude more beauty in nature than in art.