[mrtksn]

You know how machines can be very good and efficient in some stuff but be terrible in other when compared to humans?

I'm yet to see anything from this world made by the latest AI generated images boom.

For example I really really like Midjourney, it creates images that feel artistic and all but I start to think that d I'm misjudging it because it appears to be a that tool makes great combinations that look fascinating because they are so novel and out of this world.

Crystals growing over the electronics, porcelain bubbles, viola that turns into plasma etc... all amazing but all these are a genre in art. Combining things, making things transition into other things, making them look like something else - all that are procedures that humans can master(it's just that the computer can do it much more quickly).

Considering that all this is simply teaching a computer to predict stuff by degrading images and trying to re-create back again, I think this is going to make a revolution in tooling when we can actually guide the output precisely. Right now it's just fascinating toy for "out of this world" image creation and anything made by AI looks like the imaginary bridges and buildings that you can find on Euro banknotes(made like that in order not to favour particular country over others). That said, I think the toy in its current state has high explorational value.

[patcon]

> Combining things, making things transition into other things, making them look like something else - all that are procedures that humans can master(it's just that the computer can do it much more quickly).

Have you not just described creativity (and genetic recombination) in the abstract? I understand this ability to combine and synthesize and cross-breed to be one of the more important components of human intelligence, from which almost everything else wonderful about us is derived. And it shouldn't escape not to replication and recombination is also the centre of biological information processes of life.

Something that recombines things better and more "creatively" than us in it's very nascent days, that feels quite important to me. Respectfully, it doesn't feel like simply a "genre of art" that it's doing better than us

[mrtksn]

I'm not talking about creativity here. It exists to create images, obviously it's creative tool by definition. I'm describing the nature of creativity and no, the creative process is not simply fitting things together somehow.

[andreilys]

The creative process is very much fitting together and remixing things.

Humans are not an island. I recommend watching the “everything is a remix” series it does a good job of expounding on this

[mrtksn]

See, you are having a straw man argument.

[patcon]

What the sibling person is saying is relevant, and I'm kinda confused why you dismiss it as a straw man

> I'm describing the nature of creativity and no, the creative process is not simply fitting things together somehow.

Many non-naive folks in the sciences would agree that creativity (as far as the universe is concerned about human activity as a physical phenomenon) is basically just aimless recombination of semiotic structures, seeking stability that helps it (and associate structures) to persist. It's not unlike the function that genetic recombination performs in the biological strata of information. Genetic recombination are creativity in the biological substrate. Our version is just much more highly dimensional, but it's the same shit (the same forces in the universe) underlying it.

Your saying human creativity is "something more" feels to me like an example of elevating the subjective conscious experience of it