Having watched people who supposedly have quantitative/statistical/mathematical training demonstrate the huge gaping holes in their intuition and big picture understanding... Or looking at the way people try and explain the outcome of an analysis or do data visualization... I don't think I'd be as dismissive about the mathematical side of things or be so firm that they are totally different from the arts in some ways.There's a difference between writing/visual artistry and bookkeeping/accounting, though. They're completely different skill sets. I don't want to be seen as looking down on bookkeeping and accounting, because those are important things, but you need to be able to develop styles and techniques in creative fields that you don't need to develop in a mathematical field (and IIRC, creative accounting is generally not a good thing). While you can learn to write or draw through study the same way you can learn to do the math needed for accounting, you can't learn to develop a style through study. Unless you're just copying someone else.
This is true even in writing and creating art for gaming products. If generative AI becomes "good enough" to fully replace artists and writers, then what it's going to produce is either going to be incredibly bland or a copy of someone else's work. I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay for something bland or that's just a copy.
I don't mind if people use AI to create something they can use as a model or prompt--that's no different than grabbing a picture off google and using that as a guide, or being inspired by a piece of writing. But the final piece needs a personal touch in a way that mathematical fields don't.
It also feels like a lot of what is published, seen at art shows, in the cinema, on the radio, etc... doesn't rise.that far above bland or a copy. Even by folks who have turned out a masterpiece or two. (Is the one hit wonder a thing?).
Last edited: