4 ms·

I don’t think the machine will find new ways for you to express yourself, it will only find ways you can impress others. As I see it, it is a prosthetic leg for

by soneca 2y ago

I don’t think the machine will find new ways for you to express yourself, it will only find ways you can impress others. As I see it, it is a prosthetic leg for you ego, not your creativity.

tempodox 2y ago
I think real creativity is creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing). Not a remix of what exited before, but something fundamentally new. Trained machines will only ever be able to remix their training data.
- em-bee 2y ago
  i strongly disagree that real creativity is created from nothing. i agree that pure remixing is not very creative, but there is more between remixing and creating from nothing. in fact creating from nothing is almost impossible. every creative act is built on something. denying that is rejecting almost every creative work out there. for the majority of works you will be able to find a previous work that it is built upon. even a sculpture made from a rock or piece of wood that is inspired from the shape of the material is not created from nothing.
  - inquisitorG 2y ago
    I would even question how creative a person is who thinks that way. All artist are indebted to their influences. It is interesting to me growing up how music artists would gush over their influences. There was almost pride in a diverse and wide influence set. Led Zeppelin literally stole parts from old blues songs for some of their most popular songs. Anyone who has learned an instrument started out playing other people's music. No one considers themselves an "artist" because they can play chopsticks on the piano. AI lets anyone play chopsticks. It means absolutely nothing. The "art" is then in taking it way past that.
- hks0 2y ago
  Quite the opposite: if the caveman hadn't drew some engravings on the wall, then Picasso had to do it, without ever getting to the cubism. He got to start the movement because he had thousands of years of previous work to get inspiration and learn from. That the machines can create or not, is a different question.
hks0 2y ago
That's a lot of assumption about how one uses the end result, and doesn't say anything about the creation itself. What if I guide the machine to create something new that I personally could never have on my own, yet never share it with anyone? It's a prosthetic leg for my brain, whose expected function is both ego and creativity.
- soneca 2y ago
  Yes, that’s a lot of assumptions. That’s why I tried to punctuate that is my opinion, and my view, while speculating how you would use it. Or, more accurately, how “one” would use it, since I know nothing about you and just using the impression that I got from your comment to express my generalization of the issue and my judgemental stance on it. That said, I am still fully on the side that this use of AI is not IA, agreeing with the author of the post. A “prosthetic leg” is a metaphor for IA, so I don’t think it is that. Neither for creativity, nor for ego actually. It is a subterfuge for, maybe, aiding one into self acceptance of what they can produce artistically. My advice would be to not use AI and, instead, make an effort into understanding what one can produce without AI, even if it is not aesthetically similar to what others produce. Dig deeper into what one can produce, regardless of any accepted technique for the craft, and that will be art. A more significant art and more humanly creative (by definition) of what the output of an AI would ever be. And a more significant art for any observer/reader, even if it contains what is perceived as rookie vices or mistakes.

by soneca 2y ago

I don’t think the machine will find new ways for you to express yourself, it will only find ways you can impress others. As I see it, it is a prosthetic leg for you ego, not your creativity.

tempodox 2y ago

I think real creativity is creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing). Not a remix of what exited before, but something fundamentally new. Trained machines will only ever be able to remix their training data.

em-bee 2y ago
i strongly disagree that real creativity is created from nothing. i agree that pure remixing is not very creative, but there is more between remixing and creating from nothing. in fact creating from nothing is almost impossible. every creative act is built on something. denying that is rejecting almost every creative work out there. for the majority of works you will be able to find a previous work that it is built upon. even a sculpture made from a rock or piece of wood that is inspired from the shape of the material is not created from nothing.
- inquisitorG 2y ago
  I would even question how creative a person is who thinks that way. All artist are indebted to their influences. It is interesting to me growing up how music artists would gush over their influences. There was almost pride in a diverse and wide influence set. Led Zeppelin literally stole parts from old blues songs for some of their most popular songs. Anyone who has learned an instrument started out playing other people's music. No one considers themselves an "artist" because they can play chopsticks on the piano. AI lets anyone play chopsticks. It means absolutely nothing. The "art" is then in taking it way past that.
hks0 2y ago
Quite the opposite: if the caveman hadn't drew some engravings on the wall, then Picasso had to do it, without ever getting to the cubism. He got to start the movement because he had thousands of years of previous work to get inspiration and learn from. That the machines can create or not, is a different question.

hks0 2y ago

That's a lot of assumption about how one uses the end result, and doesn't say anything about the creation itself. What if I guide the machine to create something new that I personally could never have on my own, yet never share it with anyone? It's a prosthetic leg for my brain, whose expected function is both ego and creativity.

soneca 2y ago
Yes, that’s a lot of assumptions. That’s why I tried to punctuate that is my opinion, and my view, while speculating how you would use it. Or, more accurately, how “one” would use it, since I know nothing about you and just using the impression that I got from your comment to express my generalization of the issue and my judgemental stance on it. That said, I am still fully on the side that this use of AI is not IA, agreeing with the author of the post. A “prosthetic leg” is a metaphor for IA, so I don’t think it is that. Neither for creativity, nor for ego actually. It is a subterfuge for, maybe, aiding one into self acceptance of what they can produce artistically. My advice would be to not use AI and, instead, make an effort into understanding what one can produce without AI, even if it is not aesthetically similar to what others produce. Dig deeper into what one can produce, regardless of any accepted technique for the craft, and that will be art. A more significant art and more humanly creative (by definition) of what the output of an AI would ever be. And a more significant art for any observer/reader, even if it contains what is perceived as rookie vices or mistakes.