3 ms·

That is an incredibly strong assertion that evidence does not seem to support currently. So, you may take it on faith if you wish, however there is growing inte

That is an incredibly strong assertion that evidence does not seem to support currently. So, you may take it on faith if you wish, however there is growing interest in the notion that creativity itself is that which is not systemetizable.

Kuinox 3y ago
You gotta back up claims like that with a source. As far as I know, nobody can prove we are not in a simulation. Meaning everything is made out of math.
- wilimitis 3y ago
  I think my point flew over your head. The burden of proof is on you to provide the source that human creativity can be computed mathematically.
  - ksaj 3y ago
    Today's AI has taught us that everything people show us they think is unique, isn't really. Everything comes from somewhere, including the things that add up to what we call creativity.
    - wilimitis 3y ago
      That's actually untrue to me as a professional artist. A.I. art has shown me that cheap permutations (which have been done in art even before A.I.) can still capture the untrained eye. I don't think that's anything particularly new. And absolutely, however creativity is the tip of the spear which pushes beyond constraints to develop novel AND meaningful style (like Beksinski, Kopera, Kostetsky, Moebius, etc). Nice try.
      - Kuinox 3y ago
        Are saying that all artists that got fooled by AI art, have untrained eyes ?
        wilimitis 3y ago
        If notion of "trained eyes" were to ever have meaning, this would be it.
        dllthomas 3y ago
        If "No True Scotsman" were to ever have meaning, this would be it.
      - snapcaster 3y ago
        AI art has won multiple competitions for photography and art. Is your claim that all the judges of these competitions were "untrained eyes"?
        wilimitis 3y ago
        If they couldn't tell it was AI, yes. Winning an art competition is by itself paradoxical in undermining the point of art, so I don't know how that's relevant, but it is certainly an impressively weak point.
        snapcaster 3y ago
        So how would one define "trained eye" without having to defer to your personal opinion? You don't think there is any merit to the point that people chosen by the community of artists to judge art are fooled by it?
  - baq 3y ago
    > The burden of proof is on you to provide the source that human creativity can be computed mathematically. Note that the same can be said about the negation: show me a proof that it can't.
    - wilimitis 3y ago
      I never said it can't. And you're mistaken unfortunately - it is extremely difficult to prove a negative, as most people trained in philosophy intimately understand. For instance, "prove God is NOT real".
      - vidarh 3y ago
        They're not arguing for the general case. In this case the negation, "just" requires showing a single computation done by a brain which provably can't be simulated by a universal turing machine.
  - Kuinox 3y ago
    I think my point flew over your head. The burden of proof is on you to provide the source that we can't simulate the whole universe, humans included. This is something that cannot be proved to be true, even if it was the truth, it is possible that you can only prove it to be false, and nobody managed to do it yet. That's why it's on you to prove it to be false. Especially since you claim that something cannot be computed with maths.
    - wilimitis 3y ago
      I never said it can't. And you're mistaken unfortunately - it is extremely difficult to prove a negative, as most people trained in philosophy intimately understand. For instance, "prove God is NOT real". You might be new to analytical thinking, and I would recommend diving a bit deeper into "burden of proof" type arguments before proceeding further.
      - Kuinox 3y ago
        > You might be new to analytical thinking, and I would recommend diving a bit deeper into "burden of proof" type arguments before proceeding further. I guess my last response was too hard for you to understand since you respond with this. Perhaps you are new to things like "reading between the lines". You are the one who made this claim: > That is an incredibly strong assertion that evidence does not seem to support currently. To avoid loosing more time, I'll write what you failed to understand: "That evidence does not seem to support currently" is your claim, something you can prove, shows the evidence you are talking about.
        wilimitis 3y ago
        You are literally a troll.
        Kuinox 3y ago
        No, you are so far up in your ivory tower, you started to use pseudo-science, and now accuse peoples of being a troll, it's easier to lie to yourself than face the reality. You still didn't send any link to the evidence you were talking about.
ksaj 3y ago
Interesting. Evolution is a series of happy accidents. So is creativity.
vidarh 3y ago
It's an assertion that rests only on the assumption that the brain adheres to known physics or if it relies on unknown physics that the computational effects of those differences can be simulated or the physical effect replicated. It'd take a truly extraordinary find that'd upend both physics and areas of logic for that assertion to be false.
- wilimitis 3y ago
  Let's try something else, because you seem to take it that "brain = physics" is a strong enough argument to believe that all of human creativity is inherently systematic. The definition of creativity itself should include the ability to subvert a system through abstraction. AI is a system so it cannot subvert itself (or, it hasn't yet). As humans, we subvert systems in mathematics by creating higher dimensional abstraction and shattering previous understanding of the fields. Often, mathematicians achieve this with a "lightening bolt-like realization" that they do not attribute to systematic thinking. Please reconsider whether systematizability should be so quickly assumed through napkin philosophy. If you want, prove with a topological map of the creative apparatus in the brain that it produces results in a systematic way. That would at least scratch the itch and get the conversation going somewhere interesting.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    There's no "napkin philosophy" here. What you call "systematizability" is irrelevant. Only whether or not a function can be computed matter, and if a function can be computed by a brain restricted to known physics, there is no reasonable theory under which it can compute anything which can't be computed by any universal turing machine. Given the absence of even any real hypothesis for any category of functions which can't, it'd be an absolutely extraordinary claim to suggest such a function exist. Where you'd get a Nobel in physics if you could show unknown physics in the brain, you'd secure a Nobel in mathematics if you could come up with a class of functions the brain can compute which can't be computed by a computer, because it'd fundamentally break basic assumptions in any number of subfields of both maths and computer science. What you describe as "subverting itself" does not require anything as drastic. It merely requires thought processes unobservable by the person in question, and processes to complex to casually understand and/or randomness. Given a large proportion of people don't even have an inner voice they can "listen to" in order to observe their thought processes other than via outputs, and we know e.g. from split-brain experiments that the conscious part of human reasoning often outright invents knowledge and observation of thought processes, we have no reliable way of analysing the extent to which thinking is "systematic", and plenty of evidence to suggest we can not trust any such notion.

Kuinox 3y ago

You gotta back up claims like that with a source. As far as I know, nobody can prove we are not in a simulation. Meaning everything is made out of math.

wilimitis 3y ago
I think my point flew over your head. The burden of proof is on you to provide the source that human creativity can be computed mathematically.
- ksaj 3y ago
  Today's AI has taught us that everything people show us they think is unique, isn't really. Everything comes from somewhere, including the things that add up to what we call creativity.
  - wilimitis 3y ago
    That's actually untrue to me as a professional artist. A.I. art has shown me that cheap permutations (which have been done in art even before A.I.) can still capture the untrained eye. I don't think that's anything particularly new. And absolutely, however creativity is the tip of the spear which pushes beyond constraints to develop novel AND meaningful style (like Beksinski, Kopera, Kostetsky, Moebius, etc). Nice try.
    - Kuinox 3y ago
      Are saying that all artists that got fooled by AI art, have untrained eyes ?
      - wilimitis 3y ago
        If notion of "trained eyes" were to ever have meaning, this would be it.
        dllthomas 3y ago
        If "No True Scotsman" were to ever have meaning, this would be it.
    - snapcaster 3y ago
      AI art has won multiple competitions for photography and art. Is your claim that all the judges of these competitions were "untrained eyes"?
      - wilimitis 3y ago
        If they couldn't tell it was AI, yes. Winning an art competition is by itself paradoxical in undermining the point of art, so I don't know how that's relevant, but it is certainly an impressively weak point.
        snapcaster 3y ago
        So how would one define "trained eye" without having to defer to your personal opinion? You don't think there is any merit to the point that people chosen by the community of artists to judge art are fooled by it?
- baq 3y ago
  > The burden of proof is on you to provide the source that human creativity can be computed mathematically. Note that the same can be said about the negation: show me a proof that it can't.
  - wilimitis 3y ago
    I never said it can't. And you're mistaken unfortunately - it is extremely difficult to prove a negative, as most people trained in philosophy intimately understand. For instance, "prove God is NOT real".
    - vidarh 3y ago
      They're not arguing for the general case. In this case the negation, "just" requires showing a single computation done by a brain which provably can't be simulated by a universal turing machine.
- Kuinox 3y ago
  I think my point flew over your head. The burden of proof is on you to provide the source that we can't simulate the whole universe, humans included. This is something that cannot be proved to be true, even if it was the truth, it is possible that you can only prove it to be false, and nobody managed to do it yet. That's why it's on you to prove it to be false. Especially since you claim that something cannot be computed with maths.
  - wilimitis 3y ago
    I never said it can't. And you're mistaken unfortunately - it is extremely difficult to prove a negative, as most people trained in philosophy intimately understand. For instance, "prove God is NOT real". You might be new to analytical thinking, and I would recommend diving a bit deeper into "burden of proof" type arguments before proceeding further.
    - Kuinox 3y ago
      > You might be new to analytical thinking, and I would recommend diving a bit deeper into "burden of proof" type arguments before proceeding further. I guess my last response was too hard for you to understand since you respond with this. Perhaps you are new to things like "reading between the lines". You are the one who made this claim: > That is an incredibly strong assertion that evidence does not seem to support currently. To avoid loosing more time, I'll write what you failed to understand: "That evidence does not seem to support currently" is your claim, something you can prove, shows the evidence you are talking about.
      - wilimitis 3y ago
        You are literally a troll.
        Kuinox 3y ago
        No, you are so far up in your ivory tower, you started to use pseudo-science, and now accuse peoples of being a troll, it's easier to lie to yourself than face the reality. You still didn't send any link to the evidence you were talking about.

ksaj 3y ago

Interesting. Evolution is a series of happy accidents. So is creativity.

vidarh 3y ago

It's an assertion that rests only on the assumption that the brain adheres to known physics or if it relies on unknown physics that the computational effects of those differences can be simulated or the physical effect replicated. It'd take a truly extraordinary find that'd upend both physics and areas of logic for that assertion to be false.

wilimitis 3y ago
Let's try something else, because you seem to take it that "brain = physics" is a strong enough argument to believe that all of human creativity is inherently systematic. The definition of creativity itself should include the ability to subvert a system through abstraction. AI is a system so it cannot subvert itself (or, it hasn't yet). As humans, we subvert systems in mathematics by creating higher dimensional abstraction and shattering previous understanding of the fields. Often, mathematicians achieve this with a "lightening bolt-like realization" that they do not attribute to systematic thinking. Please reconsider whether systematizability should be so quickly assumed through napkin philosophy. If you want, prove with a topological map of the creative apparatus in the brain that it produces results in a systematic way. That would at least scratch the itch and get the conversation going somewhere interesting.
- vidarh 3y ago
  There's no "napkin philosophy" here. What you call "systematizability" is irrelevant. Only whether or not a function can be computed matter, and if a function can be computed by a brain restricted to known physics, there is no reasonable theory under which it can compute anything which can't be computed by any universal turing machine. Given the absence of even any real hypothesis for any category of functions which can't, it'd be an absolutely extraordinary claim to suggest such a function exist. Where you'd get a Nobel in physics if you could show unknown physics in the brain, you'd secure a Nobel in mathematics if you could come up with a class of functions the brain can compute which can't be computed by a computer, because it'd fundamentally break basic assumptions in any number of subfields of both maths and computer science. What you describe as "subverting itself" does not require anything as drastic. It merely requires thought processes unobservable by the person in question, and processes to complex to casually understand and/or randomness. Given a large proportion of people don't even have an inner voice they can "listen to" in order to observe their thought processes other than via outputs, and we know e.g. from split-brain experiments that the conscious part of human reasoning often outright invents knowledge and observation of thought processes, we have no reliable way of analysing the extent to which thinking is "systematic", and plenty of evidence to suggest we can not trust any such notion.