3 ms·

> Neither can create something that isn't in some way part of their data set. Thank you for providing a clear example of what I term "selling humanity short"

> Neither can create something that isn't in some way part of their data set. Thank you for providing a clear example of what I term "selling humanity short" None of human art exists outside the extremely complex cultural evolution history where bits and pieces of perceived reality are internalized by individuals (using entirely novel and evolving mental models and representations that we hardly understand) and is then communicated, gets transplanted and recognized as similar experiences in the brains of other humans, in an ever evolving chain of brain to brain interactions via (much more mundane) physical channels. To make all this extraordinary stuff fit the current AI narrative people opt to wield a dehumanizing sledgehammer to eliminate anything but the in / out information processing concept (ignoring the garbage-in / garbage-out problem). But just to play along for the sake of the argument, for AI to create "art", it would have to ingest a body of boring mystery whodunit prose and decide to write a poem about it.

nickpp 4y ago
> using entirely novel and evolving mental models and representations that we hardly understand What if they're just statistics plus some randomizer?
- freejazz 4y ago
  What if you've never had a creative thought in your life?
  - nickpp 4y ago
    Very possible. How would you recognize a creative thought if you had one?
cortic 4y ago
>None of human art exists outside the extremely complex [perceive data]>[internalize]>[algorithm]>[output]> That's just a description of what the AI is doing with a tacked on group interaction that AI will do when more AI art is available. >dehumanizing sledgehammer In other words people tend to be objective, i disagree but i don't see the problem. If our only difference is because we can anthropomorphize humans better than AIs then there is no objective difference. But just to play along for the sake of the argument, for Humans to create "art", it would have to ingest a body of boring mystery whodunit prose and be guided to write a poem about it.

nickpp 4y ago

> using entirely novel and evolving mental models and representations that we hardly understand What if they're just statistics plus some randomizer?

freejazz 4y ago
What if you've never had a creative thought in your life?
- nickpp 4y ago
  Very possible. How would you recognize a creative thought if you had one?

cortic 4y ago

>None of human art exists outside the extremely complex [perceive data]>[internalize]>[algorithm]>[output]> That's just a description of what the AI is doing with a tacked on group interaction that AI will do when more AI art is available. >dehumanizing sledgehammer In other words people tend to be objective, i disagree but i don't see the problem. If our only difference is because we can anthropomorphize humans better than AIs then there is no objective difference. But just to play along for the sake of the argument, for Humans to create "art", it would have to ingest a body of boring mystery whodunit prose and be guided to write a poem about it.