[krapp]

>The idea of automating creativity is ludicrous.

No it isn't. Not anymore ludicrous than automating anything else, just far more complex in its implementation. It's not impossible.

>the universe we live in is infinitely vast and full of endless paths to explore.

Yes, but human beings are not infinite, nor is their capacity for creative thought. We're bound by finite time, space, perception, culture and neurology. Therefore, I believe human creativity is a process which can be modeled, replicated and mass produced just as human labor can. There's nothing special or magic about it, it's just a nut we haven't cracked yet. But then, there was a time when the concept of a machine doing math was unthinkable as well, and a machine doing cryptography, and a machine playing Jeopardy, etc.

Consider how formulaic much of modern popular culture is. Do you really think it's impossible for an AI, with access to the entire web and, theoretically, working neural models, to churn out an acceptable dime store novel or movie or video game? We're not talking about genius, here, we're talking about commerce. People will buy it. And if people will buy it coming from a machine, there's no longer any reason to pay humans to generate it.

It doesn't even really have to be better than what humans would produce - just acceptable.

[taroth]

I think the point the above posters were making is that people will continue to create for fun, even if machines are better at it.

[bsoares]

This is exactly my point. Creativity is not a mindless endeavor in need of automation. It is the heart of human existence, no matter how finite your world view considers it.

[krapp]

I agree that creativity is as important to the human experience as you say. But that still doesn't mean the industry of creativity won't suffer the same drive for automation as every other, or that it can't be generated by machines. I don't think there's actually a contradiction here, people will still be creative, but more and more popular culture will be algorithmically generated - the jobs for creative work, and the support work, may not be there.

Although that does also suggest that human-generated creative works may become more valuable for their rarity.

[normloman]

Since the invention of mass media. most folks in the "creative industry" already work for next to nothing. Automation would only threaten the .1% of artists, musicians, and actors at the top. My band, for instance, barely makes any money, but we're in it for fun. Hatsune Miku won't put us out of work, but after a few more updates, she might replace Katy Perry.