I showed Alan my post about our conversation, and he shared with me some of his ideas. They’re quite insightful and bring additional clarity to the discussion I presented earlier. With his permission, I’ve published his response below.

Thanks for communicating my argument (and Tolstoy’s) in such concise but accurate terms. One thing which I probably didn’t articulate in our earlier debates but would like to offer now is the idea that art for art’s sake is often used to challenge aesthetic norms, to make people aware of new structural¹ possibilities, and to broaden the public’s conceptions of what constitutes beauty or simply propose new paradigms of artistic thought (e.g. suggest different communicative purposes for art). In short, this is not only about entertaining people, transmitting an artist’s “feelings” and ideas to an audience, or even fostering “union among men” (as legitimate as these objectives are, each on their own); it’s about making cultural progress.

Granted, one risks sounding Western-normative when proposing anything concerning “progress” and “culture” (perhaps saying “increasing sensitivity and awareness” is better than using a charged word like “progress”). But insofar as people value the process of imagining, defining, and redefining themselves - i.e. considering what it means to be human in changing times and circumstances - then the arts and humanities remain relevant to our society, and furthermore, the fact that humans - not machines and probabilistic models - are the ones who engage in these processes of reflection and innovation will continue to be of the utmost importance, if not for practical then for symbolic reasons (which in this case I don’t think are any less valid). In a sense, this engagement is what ensures that we as humans keep our existence meaningful. Otherwise - and I think you may have said this before - it’s totally plausible that technology will render us utterly obsolete, taking our fate out of our hands. To use Sinofsky’s words, I believe humans need something akin to a “point of view” informing their existence too (though by this analogy, I guess we would be both the designers and the customers?). The point of view is probably ever-evolving and different for different groups of people. It can be collective and/or individual. In any case, art is one of the tools that can help provide it.

One thought-provoking point (of the many) you make in your post is that if the “probabilistic black-box” can make true art, then “it will probably have so thorough an understanding of humanity that the box might as well be human.” I think one of the things that define us humans is imperfection - an individual will never know anything completely, and can only act upon an understanding based upon experience, whether that be of a lifetime or of an event that occurred in a matter of seconds. And as you yourself have said, what with the potential advances in technology, AI, and neuroscience, a future machine’s understanding of humanity may far outstrip that of any flesh-and-blood human being. But will this mean that the machine has become more human? The more critical distinguishing feature between man and machine, I think, is the will to express or do something with the knowledge, experience, and perspective acquired. That’s ultimately the essence and manifestation of subjectivity, and if the probabilistic black-box develops that too, then yes, it might as well be human.

Subjectivity, point of view… I don’t know. Whatever it is and whatever you call it, art can help express it. And I think that’s what people ultimately like to see, if not for pleasure then for existential reassurance: that there is something to express and someone who wants to express it.