@doug @aredridel @glenatron @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon
So Doug what you are saying is one of these things takes in external data, processes it, synergies it, and exports a derivative version, and the other thing is the machine?
No wait, the other thing is the human?
... Wait...
@aredridel @glenatron @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon
So, a human being a link in the chain of this historical cultural development of creation, is "more valuable" than a machine doing that?
Who makes these rules?
There is some kind of value structure at play here that I have not been made privy to?
@aredridel @glenatron @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon
I don't understand, can you elaborate please. How is it not biological?
@aredridel @glenatron @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon
Humans are also machines, biological machines, with a neurology based on neurons and synapse. As pointed out before, human "creativity" is also a result of past external consumption.
When AI is used to eventually make a movie, it will use more than one AI model. Does that make a difference? I guess your "one person" example is Scorsese's "auteur"?
It seems we are fetishizing biological machines over silicon machines?
In fact, generating content purely for the purpose of training itself is one of the core techniques in training machine learning models.
Actually this is how we are training some models now.
The models are separated, fed different versions of the source data, then we kick off a process of feeding them content that was created by the other models creating a loop. It has proven very effective. It is also the case that this generation of AI created content is the next generations training data, simply by existing. What you are saying is absolutely false. Generated content DOES have a lot of value as source data
A machine will not unilaterally develop an art form, and develop it for 100,000 years.
Yes I agree with this.
However, they are not developing an art form now.
Nor did Monet, Shakespeare, or Beethoven develop an art form. Or develop it for 100,000 years.
So machines cannot emulate that.
But they can create the end product based on past creations, much as Monet, Shakespeare, and Beethoven did.
@glenatron @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon
This angle is very similar to a debate going on in the cinema world, with Scorsese famously ranting that Marvel movies are "not movies"
The point being without a directors message being portrayed, these cookie cutter cinema experiences, with algorithmically developed story lines, should not be classified as proper movies.
But the fact remains, we consume them as movies.
We consume AI art as art.
Actually. It is necessary. The process of creativity is much much more a synergy of past consumption than we think.
It took 100,000 years to get from cave drawings to Leonard Da Vinci.
Yes we always find ways to draw, but the pinnacle of art comes from a shared culture of centuries.
@glenatron @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon
I mean, yes, you are right, but essentially, it is all external factors. They can be lived through external factors, or data fed external factors.
I don't think there is a disagreement here other than you are placing a lot of value on "the human experience" being an in real life thing rather than a read thing. Which is not even fully true of the great masters. It's a form of puritan fetishisation I guess.
Rutowski, Monet, and Rockwell could also not create without human art.
All creativity is a combination of past creativity.
Even Monet.
Even Shakespeare.
Even Beethoven.
@doug @aredridel @glenatron @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon
Imagination *IS* the processing of retained information to create a derivative.