4 ms·

Without trained models from human creativity, what can AI do ? These AI emerged because of human creativity. Picasso created it’s new art form from its own cre

Without trained models from human creativity, what can AI do ? These AI emerged because of human creativity. Picasso created it’s new art form from its own creativity. He created something no one ever though of before. Now AI are fueled with Picasso’s drawing and can produce art that looks like his maybe. But what about creating something entirely new that has never been fueled into the engine. Could the AI invent something I’m about to dream tomorrow and this be the exact same copy ?

TchoBeer 4y ago
I think it's undeniable that AI can create novel things, the question is if AI can create novel things that are also interesting. A randomized 600x600 png is novel, but it isn't at all interesting, much of what goes into making a piece of art interesting is not a quantifiable or well-defined goal. That's not to say that AI is better than humans, just the opposite, art is a deeply human object, and I do not know if we would appreciate art made and developed by AI in the same way we do absorbing and creating art in response to each other.
- shinycode 4y ago
  I see your point. We agree that on a 600x600png there is a finite number of possibilities given a set number of colors. It could be possible to « brute force » all the images possible which would be the equivalent of trying all the combinations of letters to write a book. So creating things is not really a problem. Creating relevant things from a purpose is. The fact is, we know no other intelligence except ours. We are the only known being that appreciate art or books, from our subjective conscience. Can AI create its own art, understood and appreciated by itself ? Has intelligence a meaning without « humans » ? It’s part of the same thing. So the AI is modeled after ours. So it’s not its own thing and cannot understand what it creates and if what is created is relevant. AI is just an amazingly powerful tool.

TchoBeer 4y ago

I think it's undeniable that AI can create novel things, the question is if AI can create novel things that are also interesting. A randomized 600x600 png is novel, but it isn't at all interesting, much of what goes into making a piece of art interesting is not a quantifiable or well-defined goal. That's not to say that AI is better than humans, just the opposite, art is a deeply human object, and I do not know if we would appreciate art made and developed by AI in the same way we do absorbing and creating art in response to each other.

shinycode 4y ago
I see your point. We agree that on a 600x600png there is a finite number of possibilities given a set number of colors. It could be possible to « brute force » all the images possible which would be the equivalent of trying all the combinations of letters to write a book. So creating things is not really a problem. Creating relevant things from a purpose is. The fact is, we know no other intelligence except ours. We are the only known being that appreciate art or books, from our subjective conscience. Can AI create its own art, understood and appreciated by itself ? Has intelligence a meaning without « humans » ? It’s part of the same thing. So the AI is modeled after ours. So it’s not its own thing and cannot understand what it creates and if what is created is relevant. AI is just an amazingly powerful tool.