[swix]

True, but couldn't the same be said about the real world to some degree? Everything "new" is based on something existing, right? Even in sci-fi/fantasy movies which are completely wild, completely "out there", the things in them are conjured by us, which is in some way shape or form based on our imagination, which is based in the reality we exist within.

My point is, that feedback loop you speak of already exists, it's just that... there are SO much variation, content, possibilities... but the same thing could be true for AI generated content in some sense. Feed it all our assets (sounds, music, movies, images) and then let it go bananas... :) - you'll have as much variation in the digital world as we do in our real world.

[Barrin92]

In the most literal sense it is true. We have experiences, DNA, senses and so by definition we're a product of the past. But in the very concrete sense when we make a piece of art we don't just go stuff in, stuff out. We express intent, coherent narrative, inner emotion, and so on. And that's really not what these ML systems do right now.

I think it's a little bit like crowdsourced art. There's these online experiments where you write a story but every user only places one word. It's grammatically correct, but the result is terrible. Because fiction in a way comes from a kind of singular intent and mind. (actually important point to note here, if 10k fully intelligent people make a democratic work of art with all their variety it's almost certainly worse than one doing it)

I'm not saying we won't have at some point a real AI of human complexity but if capable of good art it'd look like a real mind, not just vomiting's out the average of all great novels or something.