5 ms·
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.
by 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 agoToday'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 agoThat'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 agoAre saying that all artists that got fooled by AI art, have untrained eyes ?
- snapcaster 3y agoAI art has won multiple competitions for photography and art. Is your claim that all the judges of these competitions were "untrained eyes"?
- wilimitis 3y agoIf 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 agoSo 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 agoI 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 agoThey'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 agoI 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 agoI 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.