2 Answers

  1. Many years ago, various models of self-learning artificial intelligence were discussed at SSC. The essence of his work is to build a predictive system — that is, he needs to be able to feed the mechanics of a chess game, and he himself, through trial and error, found out how it works and what needs to be done.

    So, if the main motivation of the AI is to reduce uncertainty (let's call it directive A), it will sit in one place and not move, because this reduces uncertainty to zero. To compensate for this mechanism, he must have the same strong motivation to try something new and see what happens (let's call it Directive B), although this increases uncertainty, and therefore goes against Directive A.

    So, about the excursions.

    When I was still at school, I tried to drag my friends to the Tretyakov Gallery — of course, no one had ever been there, we didn't take the whole class on excursions, but for some reason there was a theory that if you just put a person in the same room with a masterpiece, something would happen. What he is, I do not know, well, will approach him at least.

    After many years of practice, the theory was not confirmed. My mistake was that I defined the problem as a lack of accessibility — that people aren't interested in art because it doesn't come across in everyday life (option: listen to klubnyak because they just haven't heard Yanka yet), but even a one-time intersection should be enough for that…

    …As I said, it was at school, which should probably excuse my naivete.

    In general, the problem has never been a lack of interest in art. The problem was the lack of directive B.

    A person who has the B directive can be attracted to absolutely any complexity. Art, philosophy, exact sciences, social sciences, whatever. He will have preferences and predispositions, but at least he admits that he can go to the museum and find something on his topic there.

    The people I dragged to the museum for some reason just didn't understand why they should be interested in something. This is not my assumption, I always tried to get them to talk, and at the bottom it always turned out to be ” why?”. With age, the lack of interest was replaced by an empty repetition of some platitudes about national geniuses, and as a result, ignorance became even worse.

    Now I go to the museum not with those who know something or do not know — I try to go with those who are interested. Who has a palpable love of complexity, variety, and nuance, not for any other purpose, but for their own sake.

    If not, no.

  2. Yes, I like it. Questions from people who are not close to the subject of the exhibition often make you think and formulate clear answers. Such questions are often unusual. Although there are always a number of standard ones. In addition, such people, as a rule, are very interested in the exhibition, for them to visit a gallery or museum is an event, and it always responds very warmly.

Leave a Reply