3 ms·

Creative work is out of reach of AI. There can be no art without intent, and AI is nothing more than proverbial monkeys with typewriters in fancy wrapping. The

Creative work is out of reach of AI. There can be no art without intent, and AI is nothing more than proverbial monkeys with typewriters in fancy wrapping. The artists in the equation are whoever gave input to the tool and whoever created the works the tool trained on.

ambrozk 4y ago
"Yeah, but computers can't be creative!" is the last line of denial for humans who don't want to face their impending obsolescence in a field. People said the same thing about chess engines, right before chess engines defeated human beings at the game conclusively, and forever. A creative brain is a million monkeys with typewriters, plus a subjective critic judging their work. Coming up with random shit and then discriminating among the results is what creative people do. If you think "creativity" is some magical human phenomenon that can't be learned by a sufficiently complicated artificial neural net, then you either don't get creativity or you don't get neural nets. Will a computer produce the next Rembrandt? Maybe not. But the average human painter isn't the next Rembrandt: they're a schmo with a bit of mechanical talent, practicing their craft. The reason human painting will survive is very simple: because 1) people value human-made objects independent of those objects' objective qualities, and because 2) paintings exist outside the digital world, and there is no robot sufficiently dexterous to match the skill of a painter in applying paint to a canvas. That being said, as this technology matures, lots of currently employed digital artists will no longer be needed.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  > A creative brain is a million monkeys with typewriters, plus a subjective critic judging their work Citation needed. We know how all ML starts with an RNG, since we built it. We don't know how human mind works.
- ausbah 4y ago
  >A creative brain is a million monkeys with typewriters, plus a subjective critic judging their work. Coming up with random shit and then discriminating among the results is what creative people do ok but that's not what these models are doing? they're mimicking training data, and sure it's really impressive how far that gets - but ask it to do something outside of that raining data or where the # of samples is low and it's "creativity" falls apart I think these models exhibit a form of creativity, but not creativity in the vein of say - an art style not seen in the training data
  - andreilys 4y ago
    I recommend watching the video Everything Is A Remix. There are very few artists who you can call “original”, the majority are riffing and remixing based on previous predecessors. Making find tweaks here and there. This is something you can achieve with an AI model just by increasing randomness.
    - crucialfelix 4y ago
      Music is a network. Nobody is isolated.
  - schleck8 4y ago
    > but ask it to do something outside of that raining data or where the # of samples is low and it's "creativity" falls apart That's actually the most interesting cases. And I strongly disagree that it falls apart 'The Edge of the Universe' https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/wmu10p/the_edge_of_the_universe/ https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/wmu10p/the_edge...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
frankzander 4y ago
That's the whole point of this discussion. Art is artful and has an intend behind it and transports emotions. AI can't provide it because this thing is "only" a computer ... it doesn't live and will never (sorry to disappoint you future believing SciFi disciples ... I'm also a fan of SciFi but some things will not happen). I also have doubts if AI will anywhere in the far future have the abilities of birds within the size of a bird brain. So AI will do what machines do ... they calculate very fast and at least mixing up things with the help of learned patterns. To me this is all interesting to see but just hype and not art. It's generated image content. Art is different.

ambrozk 4y ago

"Yeah, but computers can't be creative!" is the last line of denial for humans who don't want to face their impending obsolescence in a field. People said the same thing about chess engines, right before chess engines defeated human beings at the game conclusively, and forever. A creative brain is a million monkeys with typewriters, plus a subjective critic judging their work. Coming up with random shit and then discriminating among the results is what creative people do. If you think "creativity" is some magical human phenomenon that can't be learned by a sufficiently complicated artificial neural net, then you either don't get creativity or you don't get neural nets. Will a computer produce the next Rembrandt? Maybe not. But the average human painter isn't the next Rembrandt: they're a schmo with a bit of mechanical talent, practicing their craft. The reason human painting will survive is very simple: because 1) people value human-made objects independent of those objects' objective qualities, and because 2) paintings exist outside the digital world, and there is no robot sufficiently dexterous to match the skill of a painter in applying paint to a canvas. That being said, as this technology matures, lots of currently employed digital artists will no longer be needed.

throwaway290 4y ago
> A creative brain is a million monkeys with typewriters, plus a subjective critic judging their work Citation needed. We know how all ML starts with an RNG, since we built it. We don't know how human mind works.
ausbah 4y ago
>A creative brain is a million monkeys with typewriters, plus a subjective critic judging their work. Coming up with random shit and then discriminating among the results is what creative people do ok but that's not what these models are doing? they're mimicking training data, and sure it's really impressive how far that gets - but ask it to do something outside of that raining data or where the # of samples is low and it's "creativity" falls apart I think these models exhibit a form of creativity, but not creativity in the vein of say - an art style not seen in the training data
- andreilys 4y ago
  I recommend watching the video Everything Is A Remix. There are very few artists who you can call “original”, the majority are riffing and remixing based on previous predecessors. Making find tweaks here and there. This is something you can achieve with an AI model just by increasing randomness.
  - crucialfelix 4y ago
    Music is a network. Nobody is isolated.
- schleck8 4y ago
  > but ask it to do something outside of that raining data or where the # of samples is low and it's "creativity" falls apart That's actually the most interesting cases. And I strongly disagree that it falls apart 'The Edge of the Universe' https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/wmu10p/the_edge_of_the_universe/ https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/wmu10p/the_edge...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

frankzander 4y ago

That's the whole point of this discussion. Art is artful and has an intend behind it and transports emotions. AI can't provide it because this thing is "only" a computer ... it doesn't live and will never (sorry to disappoint you future believing SciFi disciples ... I'm also a fan of SciFi but some things will not happen). I also have doubts if AI will anywhere in the far future have the abilities of birds within the size of a bird brain. So AI will do what machines do ... they calculate very fast and at least mixing up things with the help of learned patterns. To me this is all interesting to see but just hype and not art. It's generated image content. Art is different.