[mmcconnell1618]

DALL-E has been trained in the styles of creative humans. It can mashup the content that it has been fed but I haven't seen it create a new style of artwork like impressionism or pop art that it hadn't already seen as examples. It also has no understanding of what is generated. We are impressed as human observers because it appears to understand the task we presented.

[gfodor]

How many hours have you spent working with it so far? You obviously have a lot of experience with it, so I’m wondering how you drew this conclusion.

[mmcconnell1618]

Zero. But I did read the research paper, web site and viewed the web site mentioned in this hacker news post along with the samples. I've worked with lots of machine learning models and tools and understand the underlying design of the system. You can't ask Dall-E to create a pop art picture of Corgis if you didn't train it on images of Corgis and pop art. I'm not downplaying the achievement of the system that creates an incredible connection between the input images and the text descriptions. But.. at the end of the day. It is not creative in the same way humans are creative.

[gfodor]

That’s just begging the question. We don’t know if DALL-E is creative in ways isomorphic to humans. It might be. How would one go about structuring a hypothesis? Have you read the original DALL-E paper?

Worth considering: https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.04035

[mmcconnell1618]

So what would make up a Turing test for creativity?

[gfodor]

This is a fascinating question, I'd imagine many other people smarter than me have thought about it. Specifically in the domain of the visual arts.