[xingyzt]

AI couldn't have started any of the artistic and literary movements, which don't just blend between traditional styles but reject some aspect to forge something new. You can't get AI to generate cubism from training on Victorian art.

[Aerroon]

Why not?

Sure, a style like cubism is unlikely to appear from current AI art generation, but ultimately there's a human still in the loop. The human picks the direction the generation goes in and you can definitely see "styles" or even "characters" appear in certain types of prompts.

If you hang around people that do this a lot you'll see that some of them end up generating hundreds, if not thousands, of images of what seems to be the same character in varying situations. That indicates to me that you could potentially find a type of prompt that would lead to an art movement.

Hell, AI art itself might constitute an art movement.

[adrianN]

So do you believe that human brains are somehow magic and don't follow the laws of physics and can't be simulated by Turing machines?

[meheleventyone]

They’re talking about AI now not some notional future where we can model a real nervous system.

[atlantic]

You've set up a false dichotomy.

"Human brain is magic." <> "Human brain is not simulatable by Turing machines."

There are other possibilities. I'm sure you can think of a few.

[adrianN]

I can't think of any. Can you help me?

[srcreigh]

I do. It’s not a very controversial belief except if you only train using Internet comments.

[adrianN]

It's quite controversial since any magic element in the universe undermines fundamental assumptions.

[srcreigh]

Physics has plenty of holes. It’s a changing model of measurable quantities in our world. It doesn’t take a lot of brainpower to fit other systems either into the gaps in physics, or independent unmeasurable areas

[adrianN]

Magic violates fundamental principles of our understanding of the world like causality or various conservation laws. You can't just squeeze that into the gaps.