3 ms·
That is a nonsense definition of creativity. The parent also wasn't suggesting - as far as I can read - that creativity is defined solely in the realm of the "t
by DavidPiper 1y ago
That is a nonsense definition of creativity. The parent also wasn't suggesting - as far as I can read - that creativity is defined solely in the realm of the "truly novel" (or "isn't based on anything you've ever seen before").
All creativity is a conversation between our own ideas and what already exists.
Consider the unused soundtrack to James Cameron's Avatar [0][1], where ethnomusicologists set out to create a kind of music that had never been heard before.
They succeeded. But it was ultimately scrapped for the film because - by virtue of it being so different to any music anyone has ever heard before - it was not remotely accessible to audiences and the movie suffered as a result.
To argue that work is not creative because it is still based on "music" is absurd.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL5sX8VmvB8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL5sX8VmvB8
[1] https://ethnomusicologyreview.ucla.edu/journal/volume/17/piece/583 https://ethnomusicologyreview.ucla.edu/journal/volume/17/pie...
- myko 1y agoIncredibly interesting, thanks for sharing
- fennecbutt 1y agoWhere was I arguing that human output is not creative at all? Human creativity is for the most part derivative in some way, that is the nature of it and my point. I was contrasting it to illustrate why I think the idea that machines cannot be creative is wrong. Especially given that current models will only get more complex and nuanced in the future. I never said that humans cannot be creative because creativity is derivative at any point. We are engaging in another human pastime; tribalism.