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…
I have defined it in your other comment, relax dude. No need to jump threads because you're emotional.
If we can infinitely reach things untraceable to known physics then I don't see how it could ever be proven that we could perfectly simulate human brains, but for the sake of the argument: what resolution do we care to…
You are literally a troll.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and re-read the thread. Creativity: producing what is novel + valuable Systematizable: can be enumerated via algorithmic operations "As others have mentioned": that is not an argument…
Adhering to physics does not necessarily imply that creativity is systematizable.
Most artists actually can tell which style each AI piece is stealing from. If you want the perfect example google "Beksinski". The overall goopy feeling of AI art is actually a turn off for most people, btw.
If notion of "trained eyes" were to ever have meaning, this would be it.
Once again since you missed the entire point: I don't believe creativity is non-physical, I believe it is non-systematizable, and my brother achieving a PhD in computational neuroscience from a top university actually…
Yeah I think my point flew over your head, which is fine. And you're incorrect - you cannot "empirically prove creativity". As a professional artist I don't think you quite understand that the type of creativity we are…
Incorrect - I'm clearly using delineate to mean providing the exact set of computational instructions which produce the output (image), which by the definition of "computable" must be true. You seem emotional, "you…
And the Masters developed their style over decades pushing beyond the previously systematized constraints of their peers, something which can definitionally not be achieved by AI which works within the dimensionality of…
I'm pointing out that your "AI Effect" is one-sided in the wrong direction. Surely you agree that we care more to prove the affirmative of whether a machine is conscious rather than prove that it isn't. If not, I don't…
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…
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".
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…
No - we're discussing whether someone producing stock photography can be trained in the same sense as a.i. However, I will give you that I'm potentially falsely assuming creativity is required to a comparable degree to…
The reverse is also true which makes your entire point hypocritically paradoxical. If a human makes it we immediately assume it can be computed (creativity). That is the strong claim which I think requires the burden of…
Once again, that is an incredibly strong assertion and if you wish to be reasonable then the burden of proof is on you to prove those parameters before making such claims (e.g. that creativity = math). The notion that…
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.
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…
Nope - a.i. is essentially just rearranging pixels because you can formally delineate (via mathematical expressions) how to arrive from input set to output image. To compare this in any respectable degree to human…
I carefully did not mention this service, but rather pointed it to your sentiment which AGAIN seems to be binary in this pro/anti idea which is unnecessarily rigid and resistant to furthering discussion on the topic.
I can understand how you would be missing that context without being a professional artist yourself. 1. Art historians carefully note the chain of inspiration, mentorship, etc in their works through primary sources…
> But the controversy over Stable Diffusion is whether they owe the human artists a cut or not, right? The controversy of Stable Diffusion is attribution. I could not care less about receiving a cut. Rather, I want my…
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…
I have defined it in your other comment, relax dude. No need to jump threads because you're emotional.
If we can infinitely reach things untraceable to known physics then I don't see how it could ever be proven that we could perfectly simulate human brains, but for the sake of the argument: what resolution do we care to…
You are literally a troll.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and re-read the thread. Creativity: producing what is novel + valuable Systematizable: can be enumerated via algorithmic operations "As others have mentioned": that is not an argument…
Adhering to physics does not necessarily imply that creativity is systematizable.
Most artists actually can tell which style each AI piece is stealing from. If you want the perfect example google "Beksinski". The overall goopy feeling of AI art is actually a turn off for most people, btw.
If notion of "trained eyes" were to ever have meaning, this would be it.
Once again since you missed the entire point: I don't believe creativity is non-physical, I believe it is non-systematizable, and my brother achieving a PhD in computational neuroscience from a top university actually…
Yeah I think my point flew over your head, which is fine. And you're incorrect - you cannot "empirically prove creativity". As a professional artist I don't think you quite understand that the type of creativity we are…
Incorrect - I'm clearly using delineate to mean providing the exact set of computational instructions which produce the output (image), which by the definition of "computable" must be true. You seem emotional, "you…
And the Masters developed their style over decades pushing beyond the previously systematized constraints of their peers, something which can definitionally not be achieved by AI which works within the dimensionality of…
I'm pointing out that your "AI Effect" is one-sided in the wrong direction. Surely you agree that we care more to prove the affirmative of whether a machine is conscious rather than prove that it isn't. If not, I don't…
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…
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".
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…
No - we're discussing whether someone producing stock photography can be trained in the same sense as a.i. However, I will give you that I'm potentially falsely assuming creativity is required to a comparable degree to…
The reverse is also true which makes your entire point hypocritically paradoxical. If a human makes it we immediately assume it can be computed (creativity). That is the strong claim which I think requires the burden of…
Once again, that is an incredibly strong assertion and if you wish to be reasonable then the burden of proof is on you to prove those parameters before making such claims (e.g. that creativity = math). The notion that…
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.
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…
Nope - a.i. is essentially just rearranging pixels because you can formally delineate (via mathematical expressions) how to arrive from input set to output image. To compare this in any respectable degree to human…
I carefully did not mention this service, but rather pointed it to your sentiment which AGAIN seems to be binary in this pro/anti idea which is unnecessarily rigid and resistant to furthering discussion on the topic.
I can understand how you would be missing that context without being a professional artist yourself. 1. Art historians carefully note the chain of inspiration, mentorship, etc in their works through primary sources…
> But the controversy over Stable Diffusion is whether they owe the human artists a cut or not, right? The controversy of Stable Diffusion is attribution. I could not care less about receiving a cut. Rather, I want my…