4 ms·

There’s a notion that AI isn’t ‘creative’; it doesn’t ‘have a soul’; that it ‘just imitates’, as if we are uniquely capable of being creative. Yet, it seems inc

There’s a notion that AI isn’t ‘creative’; it doesn’t ‘have a soul’; that it ‘just imitates’, as if we are uniquely capable of being creative. Yet, it seems increasingly clear to many of us ‘AI bros’ that this isn’t true. For now, I largely agree with the critics. However, I think it won’t be long before these sorts of statements could be looked back upon as short sighted or even derogatory.

xg15 4y ago
> that it ‘just imitates’, as if we are uniquely capable of being creative. Yet, it seems increasingly clear to many of us ‘AI bros’ that this isn’t true. I think to be able to adequately judge that, you'd have to chat with some artists (or at least art critics or art historians). We know since Eliza that generated content can be quite convincing for people who are laymen in the field. However that doesn't mean that someone with more knowledge won't still immediately view it as an imitation. Compare the discussion about GitHub Copilot, where tech people do have the necessary skill to judge the generated code. The result was that, while we were all impressed with Copilot, it was clear pretty quickly that it didn't actually think up an algorithm or design an architecture but just meaningfully combined snippets of code from GitHub.