Good art by bad people

[Forsher]

Knowledge limitations: The underlying model, GPT-3.5, was trained on a large dataset up until September 2021. If a text contains recent information or events beyond that date, it suggests that it might not have been generated by ChatGPT.

Interesting. The current version is 4.0, so ChatGPT has limited knowledge on itself. If the information that a version of ChatGPT has a dataset limited to a certain date always comes out after that date (that is, it isn’t announced beforehand), then ChatGPT will always overestimate its own limitations.

ChatGPT is free. GPT4 is paywalled.

[Juansonia]

Knowledge limitations: The underlying model, GPT-3.5, was trained on a large dataset up until September 2021. If a text contains recent information or events beyond that date, it suggests that it might not have been generated by ChatGPT.

Interesting. The current version is 4.0, so ChatGPT has limited knowledge on itself. If the information that a version of ChatGPT has a dataset limited to a certain date always comes out after that date (that is, it isn’t announced beforehand), then ChatGPT will always overestimate its own limitations.

ChatGPT doesn't "know" shit, it simply responds to prompts in a manner designed to imitate human speech.

[Heavenly Assault]

Calling someone "bad" is childish and excessively simplistic.

[Ethel mermania]

Calling someone "bad" is childish and excessively simplistic.

Thats a bad take.

Simple yet accurate

[Heavenly Assault]

Calling someone "bad" is childish and excessively simplistic.

Thats a bad take.

Simple yet accurate

How? Every person has traits that can be contextually beneficial or detrimental to others. Calling someone "bad" just means you found an individual didn't directly benefit you enough to call them "good". It is an inherently selfish world view, not to mention it disregards all the factors out of a person's control that influences their behavior. Is a drunk driver that kills someone a bad person? Or is it society that encourages and subsidizes alcohol culture around them that's bad? It's not a black and white issue. Same can be applied to many other circumstances.

[Elwher]

Thats a bad take.

Simple yet accurate

How? Every person has traits that can be contextually beneficial or detrimental to others. Calling someone "bad" just means you found an individual didn't directly benefit you enough to call them "good". It is an inherently selfish world view, not to mention it disregards all the factors out of a person's control that influences their behavior. Is a drunk driver that kills someone a bad person? Or is it society that encourages and subsidizes alcohol culture around them that's bad? It's not a black and white issue. Same can be applied to many other circumstances.

Is Bil Cosby a bad person? I will answer an unqualified "Yes" based on his prediction for drugging women in order to facilitate his sexual release. His actions neither benefited nor harmed me, but from an objective standard the actions were bad. As they were voluntary on his part, that makes him a bad person.

Similar digressions can be made for Jeffery Epstein, Rolf Harris, and Idi Amin.

[Forsher]

How? Every person has traits that can be contextually beneficial or detrimental to others. Calling someone "bad" just means you found an individual didn't directly benefit you enough to call them "good". It is an inherently selfish world view, not to mention it disregards all the factors out of a person's control that influences their behavior. Is a drunk driver that kills someone a bad person? Or is it society that encourages and subsidizes alcohol culture around them that's bad? It's not a black and white issue. Same can be applied to many other circumstances.

Is Bil Cosby a bad person? I will answer an unqualified "Yes" based on his prediction for drugging women in order to facilitate his sexual release. His actions neither benefited nor harmed me, but from an objective standard the actions were bad. As they were voluntary on his part, that makes him a bad person.

Similar digressions can be made for Jeffery Epstein, Rolf Harris, and Idi Amin.

Those people aren't bad...

They were bad, on account of being dead.

[Heavenly Assault]

How? Every person has traits that can be contextually beneficial or detrimental to others. Calling someone "bad" just means you found an individual didn't directly benefit you enough to call them "good". It is an inherently selfish world view, not to mention it disregards all the factors out of a person's control that influences their behavior. Is a drunk driver that kills someone a bad person? Or is it society that encourages and subsidizes alcohol culture around them that's bad? It's not a black and white issue. Same can be applied to many other circumstances.

Is Bil Cosby a bad person? I will answer an unqualified "Yes" based on his prediction for drugging women in order to facilitate his sexual release. His actions neither benefited nor harmed me, but from an objective standard the actions were bad. As they were voluntary on his part, that makes him a bad person.

Similar digressions can be made for Jeffery Epstein, Rolf Harris, and Idi Amin.

His actions did harm you. He went against the standard of behavior that you impose on society, thus evoking a negative emotional response from you. Therefore, he is your ideological/moralistic enemy. Have you ever met Bill Cosby? How well do you know him? Have you experienced his life through his perspective? Would you still call him unequivocally "bad" if he gave a million dollars to your family? And how voluntary are one's actions when our actions are primarily dictated by our genetics and environment(?) - 2 things that are out of our control. Your absolutism and simplicity is not at all "objective".

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

SO I have to prevent anyone ever making fried chicken.... and also prevent anyone ever creating contact lenses... and also anyone who ever just splatters paint randomly on a canvas and then treats it like anything other than a waste of paint and canvas.

At the risk of de-railing the thread:

Jackson Pollock's work was about decontruction and analysis of the artistic method. It was his way of exploring the age old question: "What is art?" The paint he was applying to the canvas was actually not splattered randomly, but often deliberately applied. It was exploration of technique, rather than exploration of imagery. The art is not in the final form, it's in the creative process.

His imitators often miss this aspect, and indeed do random splatter the canvas. Which *is* a waste of paint and canvas. They are not actually exploring a new idea which is what Pollock did, they are simply producing a pastiche.

Good post.

[Risottia]

Wagner was a jerkass to his wife, exploited a mentally instable person, and was a rabid antisemite.
Phidias likely engaged in pederasty and owned slaves.
Dante Alighieri was a Guelph.

Should we destroy their artwork?

[Life empire]

ChatGPT?

Determining whether something is written by ChatGPT or not can be challenging, as the model aims to generate human-like text. However, there are a few indicators that can help you make an educated guess:

Unusual responses: ChatGPT may occasionally produce nonsensical or irrelevant answers. If the text you're analyzing contains unexpected or illogical statements, it might suggest it was generated by an AI model.

Excessive verbosity or repetition: ChatGPT sometimes tends to be overly wordy or redundant in its responses. If you notice an unusually long or repetitive reply, it could be a hint that it was generated by an AI.

Lack of personal experiences or emotions: While ChatGPT can simulate human-like conversations, it doesn't have personal experiences or emotions of its own. If the text lacks personal anecdotes or emotional depth, it may be an indication that it's generated by an AI.

Knowledge limitations: The underlying model, GPT-3.5, was trained on a large dataset up until September 2021. If a text contains recent information or events beyond that date, it suggests that it might not have been generated by ChatGPT.

Inconsistent or contradictory statements: ChatGPT may sometimes provide conflicting answers within the same conversation. If you encounter inconsistent responses or contradictory information, it could indicate AI involvement.

It's important to note that these indicators are not foolproof, and there is always a possibility of human-like text being generated by ChatGPT. AI technology is continually advancing, and it's becoming increasingly challenging to distinguish between AI-generated and human-generated content.

funny how this post fills at least 2 of those boxes

[Alcala-Cordel]

Calling someone "bad" is childish and excessively simplistic.

The word "bad" doesn't necessarily mean someone's entirely morally bankrupt. Even Hitler wasn't incapable of doing good things, but to call him bad would still be an understatement.

[Ethel mermania]

Is Bil Cosby a bad person? I will answer an unqualified "Yes" based on his prediction for drugging women in order to facilitate his sexual release. His actions neither benefited nor harmed me, but from an objective standard the actions were bad. As they were voluntary on his part, that makes him a bad person.

Similar digressions can be made for Jeffery Epstein, Rolf Harris, and Idi Amin.

His actions did harm you. He went against the standard of behavior that you impose on society, thus evoking a negative emotional response from you. Therefore, he is your ideological/moralistic enemy. Have you ever met Bill Cosby? How well do you know him? Have you experienced his life through his perspective? Would you still call him unequivocally "bad" if he gave a million dollars to your family? And how voluntary are one's actions when our actions are primarily dictated by our genetics and environment(?) - 2 things that are out of our control. Your absolutism and simplicity is not at all "objective".

By all accounts Pol Pot was a good guy to chat with, was charismatic, and treated his friends well. You want to say he wasn't a bad person. How about chuckie Manson, his followers loved him, though of him as a God. You don't want to say he was a bad person?

And yes if Bill Cosby gave me a million dollars he is still a bad person

[Point Blob]

Jackson Pollock's work was about decontruction and analysis of the artistic method. It was his way of exploring the age old question: "What is art?" The paint he was applying to the canvas was actually not splattered randomly, but often deliberately applied. It was exploration of technique, rather than exploration of imagery. The art is not in the final form, it's in the creative process.

Utterly atrocious behaviour.
And I'm at least tangentially aware of that, but I say random because that is effectively the result, and it is the result that matters. If a piece's entire value is in the creative process then it has NONE.
It is not educational. It is not informative. It does not depict anything. It is just ugly paint splatters, and the bastard actually got rich from it. I've left better-looking stains in the toilet bowl.

Calling someone "bad" is childish and excessively simplistic.

It is inaccurate, if one assumes objectivity a goal. But it serves the subversive purpose of trying to present one's own opinions as objectivity in order to discourage disagreement... which is something people (and myself) frequently tend to do.

[James_xenoland]

Good art is good art, bad art is bad art.. It's as simple as that. This idea that everything we interact with, as well as every possible aspect of or relation to it in any way, has to align with our opinions and beliefs, is quite literally disastrous for a society, functional or not even. We should be every bit as worried about the attempted infusion of politics and ideology (especially in the form of activism) into everything, as we are about any other threat to a free and healthy society.

Even a wrong or crime committed by a creator, doesn't change the basic nature of a work. Once you start judging everything as a proxy, you've lost the plot entirely.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

No amount of genre defining albums will make Varg Vikernes less of a shitty edgelord.

[Ifreann]

Wagner was a jerkass to his wife, exploited a mentally instable person, and was a rabid antisemite.
Phidias likely engaged in pederasty and owned slaves.
Dante Alighieri was a Guelph.

Should we destroy their artwork?

Who said anything about destroying anything?

[The Archregimancy]

Wagner was a jerkass to his wife, exploited a mentally instable person, and was a rabid antisemite.
Phidias likely engaged in pederasty and owned slaves.
Dante Alighieri was a Guelph.

Should we destroy their artwork?

Who said anything about destroying anything?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but the identity of the poster and the Guelph reference led me to believe that post was a history joke, not a serious argument.

Obviously we should only destroy art produced by Ghibellines.

[Alvecia]

I feel like is adjacent to the concept of "Death of the Author", which holds that literary interpretation should be separated from the creator of the work.
In the same vein I find that artistic works can be enjoyed on their own merits, otherwise independent of the personality or intention of their creator.

Of course it's all very subjective, and many will not be able to make that separation. The creator will necessarily influence the enjoyment of their work. Which is a perfectly fine position to take.
Neither position is any less valid than the other.

Personally I suspect my position is greatly influenced by the copious amounts of fanfiction I consume

[Point Blob]

Good art is good art, bad art is bad art.. It's as simple as that. This idea that everything we interact with, as well as every possible aspect of or relation to it in any way, has to align with our opinions and beliefs, is quite literally disastrous for a society, functional or not even. We should be every bit as worried about the attempted infusion of politics and ideology (especially in the form of activism) into everything, as we are about any other threat to a free and healthy society.

Objective reality is not founded on opinions nor beliefs, for sure... but art is a thing OF opinion and belief, and not a thing of objective reality. You take the politics and ideology out of it, then you're taking the art out of it too. So your opening statement is 100% false.

[Valles Marineris Mining co]

Perfect example of separating art from artist:

R Kelly
Kanye

Both have really good songs, are terrible people (R Kelly especially, Kanye didn’t do anything specifically illegal, just was being a Nazi, R Kelly was a straight up pedo)

[James_xenoland]

Good art is good art, bad art is bad art.. It's as simple as that. This idea that everything we interact with, as well as every possible aspect of or relation to it in any way, has to align with our opinions and beliefs, is quite literally disastrous for a society, functional or not even. We should be every bit as worried about the attempted infusion of politics and ideology (especially in the form of activism) into everything, as we are about any other threat to a free and healthy society.

Objective reality is not founded on opinions nor beliefs, for sure... but art is a thing OF opinion and belief, and not a thing of objective reality. You take the politics and ideology out of it, then you're taking the art out of it too. So your opening statement is 100% false.

Swing and a miss! Where did I say that art can't be influenced by opinion and belief? In fact how did you even get that out of my post? I'm talking about judging art based on outside factors like issues related to the creator or creation. Good art is good art, bad art is bad art. (as far as something so subjective can be labeled "bad")

Art can be political or ideological sometimes but it's not the default or norm, more of just a type or genre. It's usually a risky thing to try to pull off since it's a fine line between message/point and propaganda. But as I already said.. This is irrelevant to my point.

[Primitive Communism]

The idea that one can separate art from their artists is one made out of a fundamental ignorance of what art is. Art is a piece of the artist given an autonomous form; it's not just an expression of their abilities or capabilities but of their mentality, experiences, personality, beliefs and passions. Art is part of the artist. It represents the artist. It is the voice and expression of the artist. You can't separate the two; trying to do so is just a form of denial, you want to ignore that someone so horrible could make something so beautiful by shutting them out entirely - but that's just coping. You don't want to lose that beauty you appreciate so much and so you want to hide the ugliness behind it by pretending it doesn't exist, or that you don't see it.

That doesn't mean cancel culture is the solution, because it isn't. There's nothing wrong with enjoying art made by bad people, what is wrong is that bad people were able to make art in the first place. There's no ethical consumption under capitalism and art isn't exempt from this. Dissolving the power structures that turn artists into monsters is far more important than swearing off their works. But you can't separate an artist from their art. Their art is a part of them, a reflection of who they are. You can't get away from that. You can only pretend it isn't there, but that doesn't make it go away.

[Kerwa]

I’d rather have good art from bad people than bad art from good people.

[Alvecia]

The idea that one can separate art from their artists is one made out of a fundamental ignorance of what art is. Art is a piece of the artist given an autonomous form; it's not just an expression of their abilities or capabilities but of their mentality, experiences, personality, beliefs and passions. Art is part of the artist. It represents the artist. It is the voice and expression of the artist. You can't separate the two; trying to do so is just a form of denial, you want to ignore that someone so horrible could make something so beautiful by shutting them out entirely - but that's just coping. You don't want to lose that beauty you appreciate so much and so you want to hide the ugliness behind it by pretending it doesn't exist, or that you don't see it.

That doesn't mean cancel culture is the solution, because it isn't. There's nothing wrong with enjoying art made by bad people, what is wrong is that bad people were able to make art in the first place. There's no ethical consumption under capitalism and art isn't exempt from this. Dissolving the power structures that turn artists into monsters is far more important than swearing off their works. But you can't separate an artist from their art. Their art is a part of them, a reflection of who they are. You can't get away from that. You can only pretend it isn't there, but that doesn't make it go away.

I personally disagree. I think the interpretive nature of art means that it can be quite easily separated from the artist.
Art can be enjoyed because it means something to the consumer, independent of authorial intent.

It doesn't have to be, but it can.