That was already done and dusted last year, remember?

I'm not sure I agree. I've seen lots of people in museums, the vast majority of them walk around, look at a work of art for 10 seconds and move on. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but my point is that they're appreciating it. They look and decide if they like it or not, move to the next one. The kind of deeper questioning you describe is rare I think (and to your credit). It doesn't require an education, but that does make it easier.

Incidentally, the average person today has been exposed to more art than most people in history, simply through television and architecture. Moreover, the innovations from the masters have been assimilated in later works until they are now commonplace. That makes it difficult for most people to recognize the novelty in masterworks. They just don't look as impressive when viewed from the future.

It just means they've killed Chromebooks and moved their devs onto a new project. Somebody update the page already!

You young'uns have it easy with your intuitive UI shit! In my day, we had intuitive WIMP shit! It constantly activated and moved the cursor when you were just trying to finger peck into a DOS terminal but your elbow touched the rolling box.

Point and Grunt interface, we called it, 'cause you pointed your finger at the number 0 on the numeric keypad, and your funny bone hit the box. And then you grunted.

When the turkey dies, do you wait until Christmas to eat it? Or do you eat it while it's fresh?

It's true y'Honour! I tooks the company private! But it was only because Elon wanted to takes the company private, and I couldn't lets that happen!

People who speak louder, thinking they're helping, are actually kind of annoying.

How very, very true, especially when you've already told them that speaking louder won't help, but clearer will. But there's one thing that's worse. I have a notch in my hearing, caused by exposure to too much outbound on the Gun Line back in '72, and some women's voices fall right into the range I can't really hear. Most of the time it's not too bad because women are usually good about shifting their voice down to a lower pitch, but there are some who either don't understand what's needed or just don't care if I can understand them or not. About the only way I've found to get them to cooperate is to speak so quietly that they can't hear me.

But your copy and pasting [...]

I don't cut and paste, but I do quote.

Don't let any of the art or art history profs at the local college hear you say that, they'll probably turn violent!

I've talked to quite a few, I'm still in one piece ;-)

Yes, I agree that voluntary attendees are more likely to actively engage. If they've been lucky enough to learn the process at school or elsewhere, they will know how to proceed.

But Bones, it's AI. Just not as we know IT.

Sitting and Looking at Art as a form of appreciation is not really a form of engagement. Engagement means using your brain and actively performing tasks with a goal. That's not true if you're merely enjoying an image, a natural environment or even a movie, passively. It is true if you're an art critic preparing an essay in your head without using an LLM.

There are things that seem like appreciation but are actually engagement. For example, meditation. It isn't sitting still, it is concentrating for the purpose of total awareness and control of one's body and its automatic functions. It's quite stressful when you're a beginner.

Not at all. When it's rigged, it's not gambling,and the law agrees with me.

And that's why OP was not allowed to drive taxis at the time. Can you say the same for AIs?

The high US insurance prices aren't funding a lot of medical research. The research is done around the world in universities and research institutes at a steady rate.

The US pharmaceuticals want a lot of money from Americans so they can *develop* the existing research into products and corner the market. That is not cheap, because the bar to entry is high. The bar to entry is high because when private corporations rush to market, they make mistakes. And they rush to market only so that they can beat their competitors.

Other countries don't mind waiting a little longer to see if the rushed drugs have side effects. This lowers their price. Because once the pharmaceuticals have served the impatient clients first, their marginal costs are almost zero and the added revenue is effectively free.

It's not gambling when a participant can act on insider information.It's a rigged system.

The comparison with casino games is not appropriate. The casino merely biases the outcome to give players a less than even chance of winning. That chance is low, but guaranteed to be nonzero, and the gamblers are able to agree to the conditions of the game in full.

Insider trading causes the "gambler" to be deliberately misled into thinking a particular game is being played when it is not.