[Jensson]

I was dumb to even try, you would just say basically "that is a combination of red green and blue dots in a new pattern, not really novel!" regardless what it was.

The wealth of things you see around you doesn't exist in nature. Stick figures doesn't exist in nature, things in nature doesn't have black outlines yet we draw that everywhere in cartoons etc. Human have proven we have imagined many entirely novel things that doesn't exist in nature. And the creatures I posted have many aspects to them that are entirely unnatural, you clearly know that there are no animals like that even without knowing about all animals, so clearly they are something novel and not just more of the same.

Anyway, whenever you put yourself in a position where you can say "nuh uh, to me that isn't like that!" to everything, you are just tricking yourself when you do so.

[scotty79]

What is the reason that you believe computer wouldn't be able to make such Spore alien and it is somehow display of unique Human creativity? There are games with procedurally generated animals glued together from parts exactly like that.

Humans imagination can only split, deform and glue. Computer are perfectly capable of doing that.

[Jensson]

> There are games with procedurally generated animals glued together from parts exactly like that.

With algorithms made by humans to make the composites reasonable. And, yes there are such games, I just posted screenshots of it since people had a lot of freedom to make their own aliens there that doesn't look like what you normally expect.

That game was made by humans coding in a lot of different kinds of movements for a lot of different kinds of shapes. Those shapes and movements doesn't exist in reality, they imagined something completely alien and did it and made it able to move.

> Humans imagination can only split, deform and glue. Computer are perfectly capable of doing that.

Humans doesn't split deform and glue randomly, they do it in interesting ways to build towards things that are totally different from the starting point.

What current AI can't do is exactly that, build towards something novel. They just glue together things randomly, or they compose them in similar ways as existing things. They aren't capable of iterating towards something novel and cool like humans as they are today.

For example, lets say a human sculpts an entirely new shape using a leathery substance, that fits in what I described above, you would just say "Oh, but that is just a known thing in a new shape, not creative, just using old things!!!". That is just a nonsense argument, not sure what you are trying to say with that, I assumed you had a reasonable definition that didn't include everything, but as it were you did include everything into it making your whole argument complete void.

[scotty79]

> With algorithms made by humans to make the composites reasonable

You definitely not need a human for that. ChatGPT creates a prose and poetry (let alone imagined aliens) that are reasonable composites.

> "Oh, but that is just a known thing in a new shape, not creative, just using old things!!!"

I'm not saying humans are not creative. I'm saying that's exactly what creation is splitting, deforming and glueing known shapes. And AI does the same. I have no idea why do you believe there's anything more to creativity than doing just that, to create something more or less accidently interesting or appealing. And why only humans can create such things in this manner. Despite clear evidence of AI generated art being interesting and appealing to large number of people.

Sounds like a religious stance.