I'm amazed how Marshall scrutinized this technology so well, without needing to understanding how it works, asking pretty much exactly the right questions, not letting any unknowns distract him from the importance of how this will fit in the broader context of human interactions. And than Stan and Marshall formulate the possibly most productive questions for both sides of the argument, which, if taken seriously, would not only depolarize the discussion, but would also help extract the most technological value.

I have a hard time understanding what you are saying. But I get the sense that it is right up my alley of thinking about things and that there is an interesting discussion to be had if only I understood it better and was better at verbalizing my thoughts. I'll be on the lookout for your posts and maybe someday I'll be able to bridge this gap. What seems relevant to the little bit that I do believe to understand is this: In a discussion between Iain McGilchrist and Jordan Peterson, Peterson mentions that he thinks of music as "the most representative of the arts. Because the world is made out of patterns and music describes how those patterns should be arranged." As I understand things, music, art and math (and other domains of knowlegde) are in a sense languages, with which one can represent the patterns of reality. Each of these languages has it's own strengths and weaknesses, by which it can become trivial or impossible to represent certain patterns in a particular language. These languages don't exist just externally in our environment and artifacts, but also internally, like our thoughts and intuitions. When creating art, one goal is to meaningfully arrange those patterns. Since some patterns are more difficult to express, say visually for example, by extension, they are also more difficult to think about visually. Therefore it seems reasonable to me that being fluent in multiple of these languages and being able to translate between them can help in creating art with more complexity, where the complexity meaningfully adds to the art, rather than being noise. Maybe more importantly though, knowing which patterns exist across languages, as opposed to patterns that only exist in one language, can help you select which patterns you want to represent to begin with.

To get this thing going, here are some excerpts from my Wolfwalkers studies. I'm going through the movie frame by frame (almost) and practicing whatever strikes me as interesting. Went on a little tangent with realistic wolfs, because I wanted to know the real thing a little more, before studying the movie's stylization. I'm not much of a social guy, but Proko 2.0 has me actually excited. Let's make this an awesome community for learning art stuff. (OR ELSE!)