> It's not creativity though. It's a program that arranges pixels in a way that is statistically similar to some training data set. It doesn't "draw" anything,

> It's not creativity though. It's a program that arranges pixels in a way that is statistically similar to some training data set. It doesn't "draw" anything, it doesn't "figure out" anything. There is no thought or idea behind it. I think this is the crux of my thought on the subject. Thank you. I absolutely see the kinds of uses it can have (guiding the repair of artwork that was damaged, seeing patterns in huge datasets, etc.), but I think the way it's marketed is that it's somehow coming up with new art, but it's really just "recreating" (on a very micro level) everything in the training set. You could absolutely argue that creatives are just regurgitating things they've seen before, but I think the big separation between ML and human creativity is that it crosses "genres", if you will. For example, I could be influenced by my experience in a car crash in such a way that it causes me to create X (art, software, music, etc.) in such an abstract way, I'm not sure whether it's even possible to recreate artificially.