[dontmobile]

Not being combative. You are mistaken. I am simply trying to keep the conversation on point and prevent deviation. You made initial points I want those points to be determined to be definitively wrong or right before moving on and branching off into deviations.

By "you" I mean the average human. The common human. It can surpass you as an average human and thus it can surpass the common human aka most humans. I don't know you but I made an assumption that you are average.

If you are good at drawing that doesn't mean you can do better. When I compare the art from LLMs to other artists it is in general equal. Then in this case it matches you in your preferred style. But likely beats you in photorealistic styles. I know artists often use simplistic styles to make things easier. Is this the case for you? I wouldn't know. But when looking at other artists I find it very likely it matches you in skill.

The claim made by me is that an LLM can surpass humans and match humans. I did not make the claim that it consistently does this. I believe the poem and the picture proves this as everyone on this thread is unlikely to provide any proof to the contrary.

Maybe you can do slightly better for the illustration. But slow speed prevents you from proving this.

[the_af]

"You" the average human, but then you challenge me to provide something better? Weird.

I wouldn't write something as bad as this poem, and I'm not even a poet!

No, my art style is not "simple", but it's not photorrealistic either (this style you showed isn't photorrealistic either, mind you).

Without taking away how the current AI image generators work, which is impressive, I find good human artists are better. And the AI is taking from them, anyway. It's one thing to say "draw like van Gogh", and another entirely to be van Gogh for the first time.

Comparing an algorithm to "average people" makes no sense. Some people are not creative at all, so maybe a clever chimp is more creative! A vector-graphics game from the 80s-90s is better than most people at drawing vector art, so what? This is not how meaningful creativity comparisons work.

Creativity is not measured in speed either. If this is the metric you're using, I can see the source of our disagreement.

[dontmobile]

Yeah why not challenge you? I assume your average. That's not wierd at all.

If you wouldn't write something as bad as the poem then write something better.

LLMs are taking away from artists simply because in the eyes of consumers they are roughly equivalent if not better. Who's to say your judgement is better then the judgement of consumers of art?

Why not compare algorithms to the average person? It's certainly better then comparing to some off the charts anomaly of a person. What you're not seeing is that an LLM beating average people is already proof it's creative. But then again LLM art surpasses even those that are above average.

Creativity is not measured in speed. This I agree. But that was not my point. My point was, speed is allowing LLMs to supply me with an endless array of proof and examples. Speed is preventing you from providing anything. It's your word against actual example outputs created by chatGPT or stable diffusion.

[the_af]

> Yeah why not challenge you? I assume your average. That's not wierd at all. If you wouldn't write something as bad as the poem then write something better.

Because, like I explained, I'm not at your beck and call. I'm not ChatGPT; you cannot order me to do things for your amusement.

> LLMs are taking away from artists simply because in the eyes of consumers they are roughly equivalent if not better.

You are making a wildly unsupported claim ("equivalent if not better"). Also, people who enjoy art are not "consumers" nor is art a "product". Your mindset is all wrong about this, which might explain why you're so easily satisfied with AI art.

> Why not compare algorithms to the average person?

Because a completely dumb algorithm that takes paragraphs from random texts in Project Guttenberg, without paying much attention to fine coherence, is already producing something "better" than the average person. Yet nobody, not even you, would call it a breakthrough in neither AI nor creativity.

This is not how meaningful discussion about creativity will happen.

By the way, the onus is on you. You made an extraordinary claim, it's on you to provide a convincing example. I don't have to "provide" anything (yet).