>You can't test that ability and if you can't test it how are you so sure of it?

This isn't some kind of superpower, anyone can look at Munch's Scream and recognize a feeling of anxiety.

My example was a very specific one, to provide a direct example of how, in some specific pieces of human artwork, the emotions an artist is trying to transmit will come through the screen.

Not all drawn art speaks with the same clarity of Munch's scream, but when it does, it's impressive.

Other mediums like storytelling also make a lot more explicit the emotions the authors are trying to evoke in us.

> You care about the author, great. Some don't give a rat's ass about the author. Are those people unable to appreciate art? If they are capable why do you insist on knowing intent being necessary for art?

I don't quite understand your points here, I actually don't think you're even trying to make any points here, but I think the proper answer would be to treat the result of human creativity not as a product to consume and forget, but as an experience of interaction with a set of passionate human beings.

This is how I experience art, and I'm sure a lot of other people experience it the same way: not as a product, but as art.

At the very least, I know for a fact that every member of my family also feels the same, and that gives me confidence that the majority outside of the HN/tech bubble also feels the same.

> Ah, well we are lucky that you, the one that sees, is here to tell us the TRUTH.

I stand by my words, I believe they're an accurate representation of reality.

People can be blinded by the technical awesomeness of something they've created, without thinking of the potentially disastrous consequences for society: it has happened many times throughout history (especially in war-related scenarios).

> Yes, of course, it is violence

I fail to see how majority-driven legislative action is an act of violence.

Mine was an (I believe correct) prediction of how things will go in a normal society that values human creativity, legislative action will rightfully limit the competitiveness of AI in certain creative sectors, to also prevent an overall societal degradation.

I really don't want to punch you or any AI researcher as it would be quite pointless, I'd much rather vote for politicians against creative AI, as that is the only proper way to trigger change in a democratic society.

From your messages, I infer you do not come from a truly democratic country, but rather a country where the government is just a corrupt and violent mouthpiece for corporations and criminals: I understand how this might impact your political and world view, but also please understand that most developed countries apart from the US (ie pretty much just the EU) are multipartisan democracies, with actually democratic elections and democratically elected governments that actually do a pretty good job at doing the right thing for the people in terms of legislation and market regulation, this is the reason why I'm confident that at least the EU will make the sensible choice in regards to AI (once it catches up with the times, hopefully soon enough).

Assuming AI even comes close to being a threat for the human creative industry, which isn't a given due to the lack of a supply problem to solve (unlike for automation in the physical world, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34277750)