3 ms·

Humans - for the moment - still drastically lead machines in the realm of creative output. But I love the author's idea of the machine as a "collaborator" Too

Humans - for the moment - still drastically lead machines in the realm of creative output. But I love the author's idea of the machine as a "collaborator" Tools like the Source Filmmaker are a good analog. (1) That platform packaged together powerful animation tools along with free assets and a simple UX to empower largely non-technical creators to make awesome CGI clips, movies, and memes. The function of the software referenced in the OP is simple - it colors your photos, it helps to extend or add texture and depth. But you can see the potential for a future where damn near anything you can think of, and draw in stick figure form could come to life as a fully realized image, painting, animation, or experience. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_Filmmaker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_Filmmaker

westoncb 8y ago
> But I love the author's idea of the machine as a "collaborator" My understanding is that this idea was at the very heart of how/why modern personal computers developed from batch-processing systems. I remember reading a quote from one of the central figures in this development (I believe it was J.C.R. Licklider —definitely from the book "The Dream Machine" which has a good bit of focus on him), which suggested that the ideal role of computers was to leave us in a position where our thoughts are purely creative, where all thought in support of some direction we've decided on is dealt with by a computer instead, and we just make creative decisions. That said—this is of course some cool new progress in that direction :)