This whole thing strikes me as coming from the wrong direction. Tying artistic and financial success, trying to apply some cargo cult "problem" engineering mentality to art. I feel like these articles illustrate quite well why the academic plastic arts have become so irrelevant today that we could say they are not part of human culture at large, in the sense that they have vanishing influence on public discourse.
If you're referring to the article's description of the study's measure of success, the metrics had little to nothing to do with direct financial gain.
> [...] in the sense that they have vanishing influence on public discourse.
Nothing inherently requires art to be a part of the public discourse. Sometimes artists create art for art's sake, and/or just to make a buck. Sure, occasionally some art makes it big in the public eye and becomes part of the zeitgeist, but the vast majority of art barely sees the light of day.
The article, to me, comes across as focused on art as a job, especially sentences like "greater creativity and success in creative careers". There's a ring of self-help/pop business that just strikes me as artless.
> Nothing inherently requires art
Of course not: I've used academic in the precise sense of people deciding to go through the institutions of art, and coming out with a noticeable lack of tasteful intelligence. Is art education just a quest for social self-realization? is it a sinecure for the happy few? That I have no idea illustrates the point.
Yes, that's a failing of science. Reading the early volumes of Nature from the 19th century shows how much more of an open dialogue it was back then: https://www.nature.com/nature/volumes
Though education was much more limited, so take "open" with a grain of salt.
I think the difficulty is we know vastly more, and have experimented with vastly more since the 19th century, that the majority of university learning these days, and the inherent challenge within that learning, is "how do we condense 200+ years of investigation, experimentation, and knowledge building into only a handful of years of learning?"
For a lot of sciences, we are very lucky that it is still possible. But the reason why scientists do not allow such an open dialogue with laypeople is because the majority of answers are going to boil down to either "that question doesn't make any sense, and i would have to spend the entire rest of the session teaching you why" or "we already did these experiments a bunch of times in the last hundred years, and found out the result, but the result is tricky because of so and so mitigating factors, and for me to explain these results and how to even interpret them in the first place (e.g. explaining how it was measured, explaining the theory behind why we chose that method to measure it, explaining what the numbers we get mean, etc.) would take the entire rest of the session"
And then of course, there's the frequent crackpots. Pretty much anyone within a science discipline who is even decently well known, especially if they're in physics, gets multiple emails a day from crackpots about how their theories are going to "totally blow a hole in the established knowledge", and at some point you hit a point where you're stuck between "spending 4 hours drafting a response to someone who has not bothered to put in the time to learn physics, and wouldn't listen to you anyway because they think they know it all", and "getting actual work done in your field". The scientists I know do take time out of their day to answer actual questions from inquisitive folk, but the difficulty is that thanks to the addition of ChatGPT, those questions are getting more and more cramped out by the crackpots armed with a hallucinating dictionary.
Certainly, I'm also aware of how difficult it is to implement open dialogue in practice. Perhaps my hope is that general education could help develop that sort of transversal insight that talented scientists use to naturally understand topics which they are not familiar with, by working with analogies and fundamental principles. I know that knowledge of the nitty gritty generally requires years of actually struggling with the thing, and this cannot be asked of any layman. Still, for example, I'm thinking of times when you deal with a topic that is nominally in the same field as yours, but that is so foreign that the only knowledge relevant to it is something barely above undergraduate, say Newton's laws or thermodynamics. Many scientists have managed to either take some lessons from other fields and bring them into theirs, or contribute despite their relative lack of education in that subfield.
I'd like to believe there is a sort of education that allows people not to understand details, but at least to be able to get the rough shape of the topic at hand and shape their ideas in a way that benefits the other party. Perhaps this is just a matter of language and shouldn't need so much more education than the basics and curiosity. Or perhaps it's a pipe dream.
As for the crackpots, well, I know some people spend time and energy with them, but it is hard to believe their true objective is learning or contributing. It is, fortunately, very obvious when you meet one in the wild.
> I'd like to believe there is a sort of education that allows people not to understand details, but at least to be able to get the rough shape of the topic at hand and shape their ideas in a way that benefits the other party. Perhaps this is just a matter of language and shouldn't need so much more education than the basics and curiosity. Or perhaps it's a pipe dream.
Oh absolutely, I think that people in STEM should receive at least a cursory education in the Arts, and likewise I think people in the Arts should receive at least a cursory education in STEM. It doesn't have to be detailed, but it would be cool to have cross-disciplinary collaboration introduced into the higher learning ecosystem!
An issue I've consistently seen is STEM professionals musing in their own time about Sociology and Psychology, and their musings are almost always wrong — there's this arrogance to it where they think that instead of reading a book on Sociology 101, they think that they can reason about it from first principles, or computational principles. It used to happen a lot in spaces I occupied (notably, the community around 100 rabbits were incredibly fond of this), and I kept interjecting, like- no people have done studies on this, yes they are rigorous studies, this has been investigated in detail for about a hundred years and the answer to all your questions are literally answered in an introductory book on the subject.
Despite that, they used to just ignore me, and instead preferred to muddle on with this broken, strange understanding of the topic. You can see the same kind of strange mix of arrogance and intelligence within the Less Wrong community as a whole. Rational Wiki has a very good page somewhere that covers a number of their efforts to break into other fields, and how, without a willingness to open their minds and submit themselves to the knowledge of others, they have found their ideas and ventures broken in some fundamental way, without understanding why.
I think that without said cross-disciplinary education, there's a risk of CS professionals not understanding how deep and vastly more complex other STEM fields are (CS is entirely human constructions, Molecular Biology however deals with the very messy reality of evolution throwing things at the wall for four billion years). Some of the most notable and influential individuals in Computer Science have initially studied under non-CS fields (Alan Kay, David Knight, Larry Wall), and you can see very clearly (or at least, it feels very clear to me) how this has influenced their work within CS in very positive ways. Learning of ideas that are new and different to your native field of study seem to encourage a kind of creativity that many are searching for. So it seems a complete and utter shame that more people aren't willing to find humility and wide-eyed glee at the prospect of learning other fields from undergraduate material up.
> And then of course, there's the frequent crackpots. Pretty much anyone within a science discipline who is even decently well known, especially if they're in physics, gets multiple emails a day from crackpots about how their theories are going to "totally blow a hole in the established knowledge"
I think at this point most of these people talk to chatbots instead, anecdotally the crank flow seems to have lessened.
I think the comparison is tough because of specialization. There are a few areas of science I have an amateur interest in but adjacent areas under the same umbrella don't interest me because because I haven't done any work to understand the area. The surface of science is so vast now that a general discussion on any specific area is bound to lose almost the entire audience.
I mean it's so advanced and esoteric.. we've been "digging" for centuries, the journey to the current coal face where new work is being done is so long you need a phd just to reach it.
Kafka (who apparently had a great sense of humor) seems to really enjoy writing people who die from too much second guessing. In the trial, K. keep failing by attempting to outplay the system at every step, because he thinks that he can stay above it all (don't we all). It's what you might call an awfully credible idiot plot.
I wondered whether K’s original crime was being “the sort of person who would express excessive pride before the law” - a Minority Report style “Contempt of Court”.
I've always been wondering if the crime matters at all. A lot of people say that going through a trial, even as a victim, is a punishment; it's the process that counts (hence "der prozess"). Perhaps the lack of a stated crime reflects that we the general public never fully understand under which specific provisions someone gets locked up. And so the actual deed may have been done before K. was born, etc.
> A lot of people say that going through a trial, even as a victim, is a punishment …
“You can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride” (rap being the charge and ride being the whole process from arrest to acquittal: time, money and emotional trauma)
"dequantization" is a thing and it's a very legitimate part of quantum information research. It's useful to probe if something was truly quantum or just smokes and mirrors, because it helps us understand where the boundary between quantum and classical lies. Another dequantized result from the past days: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.21908
A very simple addition that makes casual browsing much more fun is to add a menu with adjacent articles, as is done in this reconstruction of Littré's 19th century french dictionary: https://www.littre.org/ (see mots voisins)
Why put comté and gruyère in two different categories? I just realized that in France the categorization of cheeses is closer to how they are prepared:
- fresh
- soft
- hard but not cooked
- hard and cooked
and it results in entirely different groupings. This will surely make some people unhappy.
I was literally was just looking at GitHub dataset availability and musing on this. A star from karpathy is worth a lot more than a star from open_claw_dood that just created his account 5 min ago.
In general, I’ve been dissatisfied with GitHub’s code search. It would be nice to see innovation here.
A swiss architect did the same in the mid 19th century with Geneva, specifically to preserve an image of the city right before the entirety of the city walls were to be razed
reply