Aaron Hertzmann
@aaronhertzmann.com
www.dgp.toronto.edu/~hertzman
I did not say they were better
November 16, 2025 at 5:19 PM
I did not say they were better
"Too Much Light Makes the Baby Go Blind" anarchic live theatre, weekly at midnight in a basement theatre in the Lower East Side. Picking up a Village Voice to scan it for interesting live music that week, like John Zorn and co. at the Knitting Factory in TriBeCa. ResFest digital film festival.
November 16, 2025 at 3:41 PM
"Too Much Light Makes the Baby Go Blind" anarchic live theatre, weekly at midnight in a basement theatre in the Lower East Side. Picking up a Village Voice to scan it for interesting live music that week, like John Zorn and co. at the Knitting Factory in TriBeCa. ResFest digital film festival.
None of these papers are reviewed double-blind, so gatekeeping is another possible factor. If I were famous in the field, perhaps it would be quite different. end/
November 1, 2025 at 8:23 PM
None of these papers are reviewed double-blind, so gatekeeping is another possible factor. If I were famous in the field, perhaps it would be quite different. end/
Maybe this is my unfamiliarity with the field, and reviews are like this for a good reason. Perhaps adversarial misreading is appropriate, and I just need to get used to a culture in which reviewers see their job as to only list paper flaws. What do you think? 6/
November 1, 2025 at 8:21 PM
Maybe this is my unfamiliarity with the field, and reviews are like this for a good reason. Perhaps adversarial misreading is appropriate, and I just need to get used to a culture in which reviewers see their job as to only list paper flaws. What do you think? 6/
I do think that "Review the manuscript in front of you, not the one you wish existed" is an excellent rule, but also "trust the authors." These reviewers seem to take a Monkey's-Paw-level of adversarial misreading.
5/
bsky.app/profile/earl...
5/
bsky.app/profile/earl...
For all the knucklehead reviewers out there.
Principles for proper peer review - Earl K. Miller
jocnf.pubpub.org/pub/qag76ip8...
#neuroscience
Principles for proper peer review - Earl K. Miller
jocnf.pubpub.org/pub/qag76ip8...
#neuroscience
Principles for proper peer review
jocnf.pubpub.org
November 1, 2025 at 8:21 PM
I do think that "Review the manuscript in front of you, not the one you wish existed" is an excellent rule, but also "trust the authors." These reviewers seem to take a Monkey's-Paw-level of adversarial misreading.
5/
bsky.app/profile/earl...
5/
bsky.app/profile/earl...
If I review a paper that makes statement X, and X sounds a lot like a totally crazy statement C, but it could also be read as a sensible statement S, then I will say "I'm not sure what you mean by X, but it could be S..." These reviewers will always insist that I said C and my paper is terrible. 4/
November 1, 2025 at 8:21 PM
If I review a paper that makes statement X, and X sounds a lot like a totally crazy statement C, but it could also be read as a sensible statement S, then I will say "I'm not sure what you mean by X, but it could be S..." These reviewers will always insist that I said C and my paper is terrible. 4/
In another case, a reviewer and editor piled on with negative comments, & it was rejected. Their comments spurred me to rethink the paper and the published version was far better. But all those comments were unnecessarily uncharitable, bordering on insulting, and could have made me give up. 3/
November 1, 2025 at 8:21 PM
In another case, a reviewer and editor piled on with negative comments, & it was rejected. Their comments spurred me to rethink the paper and the published version was far better. But all those comments were unnecessarily uncharitable, bordering on insulting, and could have made me give up. 3/
But I've never turned an adversarial reviewer around. Once, they insisted we'd said something nonsensical. We revised the paper to avoid that misinterpretation, and clarified it in the response letter. The reviewer still insisted that we had said that nonsensical thing. The editor overruled them. 2/
November 1, 2025 at 8:07 PM
But I've never turned an adversarial reviewer around. Once, they insisted we'd said something nonsensical. We revised the paper to avoid that misinterpretation, and clarified it in the response letter. The reviewer still insisted that we had said that nonsensical thing. The editor overruled them. 2/
Also, the money-driven "AI intelligence" hype train is overwhelming most discourse
October 31, 2025 at 4:44 PM
Also, the money-driven "AI intelligence" hype train is overwhelming most discourse
Like "intelligence" and "aesthetics" attempts to measure it become the def.—seems like a lot of people in sci/tech believe they must be measurable. I like these accounts which are not measurable (one of which I wrote):
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....
aaronhertzmann.com/2023/09/27/w...
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....
aaronhertzmann.com/2023/09/27/w...
The curious case of uncurious creation
This paper seeks to answer the question: Can contemporary forms of artificial intelligence be creative? To answer this question, I consider three conditions that are commonly taken to be necessary ...
www.tandfonline.com
October 28, 2025 at 9:51 PM
Like "intelligence" and "aesthetics" attempts to measure it become the def.—seems like a lot of people in sci/tech believe they must be measurable. I like these accounts which are not measurable (one of which I wrote):
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....
aaronhertzmann.com/2023/09/27/w...
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....
aaronhertzmann.com/2023/09/27/w...
I apologize, I don't mean to pick on you specifically, I'm more responding to a framing that seems really common: "AI doesn't make good art because AI does not have <some human-like qualities>". This gives the AI agency it does not have, and absolves the humans of responsibility and ownership.
October 25, 2025 at 6:17 AM
I apologize, I don't mean to pick on you specifically, I'm more responding to a framing that seems really common: "AI doesn't make good art because AI does not have <some human-like qualities>". This gives the AI agency it does not have, and absolves the humans of responsibility and ownership.
This is one of the framings I disagree with: that AI is a bad artist. I argue that "AI" can't be an artist because it's not a person. If "AI art" is "bad," it's either because its a bad tool for people making art, or was used badly. All art is human-made art. 13/
bsky.app/profile/mark...
bsky.app/profile/mark...
This is a very good clip of Guillermo del Toro on the value of art. The value of human-made art is, in part, based on what the artist experienced that made them want to make the art. That is what we pay for. That is what AI does not have.
October 24, 2025 at 10:31 PM
This is one of the framings I disagree with: that AI is a bad artist. I argue that "AI" can't be an artist because it's not a person. If "AI art" is "bad," it's either because its a bad tool for people making art, or was used badly. All art is human-made art. 13/
bsky.app/profile/mark...
bsky.app/profile/mark...
Since some people seem to associate "technical skill" with "right to comment on art", I'll just mention that I've been posting my own amateur drawings on Instagram for a long time. These are stylus drawings on iPad, but my art degree was all physical media.
www.instagram.com/aaronhertzma...
12/
www.instagram.com/aaronhertzma...
12/
Login • Instagram
Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.
www.instagram.com
October 24, 2025 at 6:42 PM
Since some people seem to associate "technical skill" with "right to comment on art", I'll just mention that I've been posting my own amateur drawings on Instagram for a long time. These are stylus drawings on iPad, but my art degree was all physical media.
www.instagram.com/aaronhertzma...
12/
www.instagram.com/aaronhertzma...
12/
Not in the talk: narrow definitions of art and aesthetics reflect sociology, not "universals". See also @wdavidmarx.bsky.social 's wonderful book _Status and Culture_. 11/
aaronhertzmann.com/2023/12/11/a...
aaronhertzmann.com/2023/12/11/a...
“That’s Not Art:” Art Worlds Define Art Differently
Recent conflicts over “AI” art have exposed divisions among different kinds of art and artists. In this post, I will argue that there is not one Art World, but many Art Worlds, and these different Art...
aaronhertzmann.com
October 24, 2025 at 5:48 PM
Not in the talk: narrow definitions of art and aesthetics reflect sociology, not "universals". See also @wdavidmarx.bsky.social 's wonderful book _Status and Culture_. 11/
aaronhertzmann.com/2023/12/11/a...
aaronhertzmann.com/2023/12/11/a...
Arguing over whether something is or isn't art is usually a huge waste of time. Just call it art. Instead, discuss its quality, functioning, and values. Is it expressive? Skillful? Ethical? Meaningful? etc. 10/
October 24, 2025 at 5:12 PM
Arguing over whether something is or isn't art is usually a huge waste of time. Just call it art. Instead, discuss its quality, functioning, and values. Is it expressive? Skillful? Ethical? Meaningful? etc. 10/
In the 2018 paper, I discussed long-term effects, and I failed to acknowledge with the shorter-term harms from new tech change can enable. This stuff is technically exciting, but scary from a sociological perspective and impact on today's artists. But that's not part of this talk. 9/
October 24, 2025 at 4:39 PM
In the 2018 paper, I discussed long-term effects, and I failed to acknowledge with the shorter-term harms from new tech change can enable. This stuff is technically exciting, but scary from a sociological perspective and impact on today's artists. But that's not part of this talk. 9/
I argue that art is a social behavior, a product of our evolutionary history. We care about art made by people (even when they used computers to do so). Computers are not people, and so we don't accept computers artists. "Computer-generated art" and "AI art" are ultimately art made by people. 8/
October 24, 2025 at 4:35 PM
I argue that art is a social behavior, a product of our evolutionary history. We care about art made by people (even when they used computers to do so). Computers are not people, and so we don't accept computers artists. "Computer-generated art" and "AI art" are ultimately art made by people. 8/
The invention of recorded music made music much easier to enjoy and enabled musical techniques like tape loops and hip-hop. But it also created a copyright fight, and ultimately new congressional legislation. And we lost a lot of the social value in music making.
bsky.app/profile/aaro... 7/
bsky.app/profile/aaro... 7/
New blog post: In 1909, the famous composer John Philip Sousa wrote that recorded music would lead to a deterioration of music and musical taste. The more I thought about it, the more I think that he had a point.
aaronhertzmann.com/2025/09/30/m...
aaronhertzmann.com/2025/09/30/m...
The Menace of Mechanical Music: Was John Philip Sousa right?
In 1877, Edison introduced the phonograph cylinders, the first musical recording media. For the first time in history, you could listen to music without being in the same room as a performing musician...
aaronhertzmann.com
October 24, 2025 at 4:31 PM
The invention of recorded music made music much easier to enjoy and enabled musical techniques like tape loops and hip-hop. But it also created a copyright fight, and ultimately new congressional legislation. And we lost a lot of the social value in music making.
bsky.app/profile/aaro... 7/
bsky.app/profile/aaro... 7/
All this means that these new "Artificial Intelligence" algorithms are new technologies for art, like photography and previous CG algorithms. Like previous technologies, they have complex impacts on how we make and understand art, some good and some quite harmful. 6/
October 24, 2025 at 4:28 PM
All this means that these new "Artificial Intelligence" algorithms are new technologies for art, like photography and previous CG algorithms. Like previous technologies, they have complex impacts on how we make and understand art, some good and some quite harmful. 6/
Another common misconception I often hear is that "people are just computers." While this might theoretically be true in the sci-fi future, it is absolutely false for computers as we know them today. If not, why is it ok to wipe and destroy your own laptop, but not ok to kill people? 5/
October 24, 2025 at 4:25 PM
Another common misconception I often hear is that "people are just computers." While this might theoretically be true in the sci-fi future, it is absolutely false for computers as we know them today. If not, why is it ok to wipe and destroy your own laptop, but not ok to kill people? 5/