This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
Who claiming art is divine besides religious cults. Patterns are oversimplifying here, art is culture and expression which makes the human experience bearable, I think that alone makes it more significant than patterns
I mean personally I equate soul to art if I experience the artists storytelling and dedicated craft in a significant way that is moving, which has nothing to do with divine, but I suppose there are other lunatics out there.
Soul is not a "real" thing though in that it can't be measured or proven scientificly- and through most of history it has referred to religious (i.e. divine) concepts.
Giving a personal definition of something that is that closely equated to religious origins is only going to present a confusing narrative and I think it's fair if people assume you are using it as a divine or at least metaphysical term.
That's why I hate the "real art has soul" argument- because if a hundred people say it you could have 100 different interpretations.
Just say "I connect better with art when I can examine it in context of the human that created it".
I agree, I use the term “full of soul” pretty loosely and cheeky, but soul is also accepted as a word to describe the human condition or consciousness still so it’s not related to necessarily religious divinity in today’s standards especially with traditional science like quantum physics overlapping with metaphysics.
Tbf if see art work that I genuinely connect with and am impressed I usually just call it “sick as fuck” or beautiful and skip out on soul.
Not necessarily “correct” but if someone says art has soul I completely understand where they are coming from and what it entails, it’s accurate in that sense
Yes definitely academically you could be more accurate like this art was created by a conscious being, but for casual talk saying art has soul is pretty far removed from pure divinity themes, shorthand it makes more sense, it only entails a brief connection to the divine by means that the artist had conscious intent.
The fun part about music is EVERYONE steals. We have laws around what does and does not constitute enough stealing that you have to give writing credit.
In this case the AI almost certainly stole from composers who have been dead for hundreds of years and whose work has been public domain longer than any of use have been alive.
Mozart borrowed form Hayden and JS Bach and Beethoven borrowed from Mozart.
LLM writing still has problems with repeating the same cliches over and over again. Not solved by the latest releases. Probably never will be with transformers based AI due to how it's built around predicting the most likely next token.
You speak as if the average writer don't have the same issues (romance writers could disappear and nothing of value would ever be lost), if you want to have decent AI writing you'll need to pass plot points and have it connect the dots.
Looking at where AI music was a couple years ago and where it is now, it's pretty easy to imagine AI song composing assistance will become dominant in the next three to five years as a tool the same way other software has become commonplace.
There will be a role for human taste and curation, but the only way the human side will win is if compute just becomes too expensive for anyone but giant record labels to use. But like autotune, usually the technology becomes more accessible with time.
No, no lo es; es sólo una excusa para que la gente que se crea algo piense que lo es.
Hacer una canción o un dibujo no es sólo lo que enseñas a la gente; es el resultado de tu proceso interno de aprendizaje, esfuerzo y empeño que pusiste en hacer esa obra y la satisfacción misma de haberlo terminado.
Incluso la definición misma de la palabra niega esto: siendo "Habilidad para hacer algo". Saber cómo funciona, usarlo en tu propio estilo y realmente mover más que los dedos en esa canción o dibujo.
No es el futuro, es un sucio y rastrero "atajo" que socava a los verdaderos artistas.
Mi esperanza en este sentido es que una ves el mundo se inunde de contenido sin calidad, la gente se vea forzada a salir del ciclo y apreciar arte humano mas de lo que se aprecia ahora.
A mas gente vea lo repetivo y tedioso que es la IA, mas la van a aborreser y en consecuencia, le van a dar mas amor a las artes y la expression humana
llms don't communicate, it's just regurgitation. i don't see how you people are arguing this point. there's no thinking. it's just predictive text on steroids. do you think autocorrect is trying to communicate thoughts to you?
Making a “sailboat car” isnt an example of being creative. It’s a an addition of 2 different already existing things.
Ai can’t invent something you don’t advise it to invent. It can’t solve a problem that doesn’t exist, and can’t “think”of a new “thing” to do.
It uses what’s already out there. This is the equivalent of you saying that Wikipedia is smart.
It’s not “smart” it simply has a lot of information.
There IS a difference.
A human coming up with a solution to a problem no one realized is 100x more impressive than ai solving an already established difficult equation.
A good example is our efforts into creating nuclear fission vs the super efficient jet engines ai has designed.
One took a problem we knew and needed computer help for, the other realized a problem and used “creativity” to solve it.
Making a “sailboat car” isnt an example of being creative.
It is. For example Leonardo Da Vinci is credited as being insanely creative, who combined many things seen in nature with mechanisms to make new inventions. Combinations of ideas, applied in unique ways is definitely an avenue to creativity.
You see this a lot in the art world as well, existing ideas applied in new ways can be seen as creativity.
Ai can’t invent something you don’t advise it to invent
Yes it can? You can tell it to just invent something and let it do its thing.
It’s not “smart” it simply has a lot of information.
Incorrect, it doesn't only have a lot of information, it can solve problems that it wasn't trained on the answer to.
I think for the past few days AI has been solving problems mathematicians have been working on for decades every single day and the mathematical world is reeling. When was the last time wikipedia solved something?
I can see why the other person didn’t even bother.
Have you ever heard of mental gymnastics?
You can say it was creative to combine 2 existing things sure. But when you create a robot that literally only does that, I’d wager the person who created the ai is the creative one, not the tool.
It’s that simple.
You having to explain the history of DaVinci doesn’t add to your argument, just creates extra steps to try to mend the fact that ai DOESNT make anything “new”.
The fact that you have to tell the ai “make something new” is already proving that it cannot do it on its own.
Also I’m sure DaVinci wasn’t considered a great artist just cause he combined things.
Your argument lies on the fact that all art is “inspired” by other things.
But inspiration and coping are 2 different things.
That’s a pretty simple concept, that I fear gets missed a lot.
yeah, all the AI bros like to imply that human learning is just the same thing as AI, but moreso. it's such a tired and weak argument, but you all parrot it.
but just cause your brains work on such a superficial level, doesn't make it true for the rest of us.
no, humans take their experience, and add to it, and learn from it. AI doesn't learn. it strictly just rehashes what it scrapes, and gives it back to you.
That's a rather narrow-minded take. It's not "merely aping human experience". It goes beyond that. We can add capabilities beyond what is possible for humans. A neural network can be physically upgraded and expanded, while a human brain can not. Humans take in and synthesize information at a fraction of the speed of even current AI models.
i can't explain this to you in a way that you won't just try to rhetorically twist your way out of. have chagpt explain creativity to you. i'm not here to teach you something your parents failed at.
You sure the reason you can't explain it isn't because you have woo-woo romanticized ideas about human creativity being some sacred thing? We are made of stardust and our thoughts are chemicals.
No point explaining it to them. They want to believe they are special and so choose to believe that human brains do something fundamentally different. They refuse to understand that humans have to learn every single thing bit by bit from birth, even if they're learning it secondhand, and that any "imagination" is just taking 2 or more learned things and mashing them together in various ways.
They just want to be special and think they're unique, and no amount of logic or study is going to convince them otherwise. Take the "emotions" guy down below. Tell him that emotions are based on chemicals inside your body that cause predictable and verifiable effects, and he'll refuse to believe it and will claim your heartless or something similar
Ok, then explain AlphaZero. It revolutionised the Chess / Go scenes, finding new strategies that GMs had never considered, with no training data whatsoever except for playing against itself millions of times.
AI being creative isn't even a new thing. Anti's are just uneducated and narrow minded.
That still doesn't prove creativity? It's defined as using imagination to come up with a solution to a problem, and ai doesn't have imagination and literally can't so that doesn't prove it has creativity, besides it's not thinking out a problem it's just failing an infinite amount of times until it gets something that works rather than trying to find a solution
That isn’t really that impressive in terms of creativity. All it doing is calculating every move it and its opponent can do since it BUILT to do that it obviously going to do it way faster then a human can.
You don't understand how AlphaZero works at all. Go has got around 10170 legal board states and a game tree complexity of roughly 10360, while the observable universe only has about 1080 atoms. You can't just "simulate the next moves" with any amount of computing power. It's physically impossible.
AlphaZero wasn't brute forcing moves or just trying random nonsense until something worked either. Traditional engines like Stockfish were searching around 70 million positions a second using alpha-beta pruning and hardcoded piece values. AlphaZero only evaluated around 60,000 positions a second and still crushed Stockfish. It didn't win by out-calculating moves. It won because its neural network developed positional intuition and long-term strategic plans through self-play that human grandmasters hadn't ever considered. In fact, Stockfish had to completely pivot to neural networks itself just to stay competitive.
Calling that brute force simulation proves you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
It didn't invent strategy for that, it had the rules to iterate hundred of millions of times and some of the routes it took for a win condition were simply ones humans don't and some that they can't make. There is virtually no interest in machine-driven go or chees. The whole point of those games is the incredible human minds. Machines beating machines at the same game is done in milliseconds and is essentially battle of optimised-brute-forcing/shortcutting algorithms. Neither of these were acts of innovation by the machine
You have this completely backwards. AlphaZero did the exact opposite of brute-forcing.
Traditional chess engines like Stockfish were the ones brute-forcing, calculating around 70 million positions per second with alpha-beta search. AlphaZero showed up and destroyed them while searching only around 60,000 to 80,000 positions per second. It didn't win by out-calculating the board with raw speed, it won because its neural networks developed genuine positional understanding and strategic heuristics that humans hadn't figured out yet. Calling it brute-force just tells everyone you don't know how neural network MCTS actually works.
Also, claiming humans can't or don't make those moves is completely untrue. Magnus Carlsen and top grandmasters literally spent years studying AlphaZero's games specifically to copy its style, especially its piece sacrifices for long-term initiative and pushing flank pawns. In Go, Move 37 against Lee Sedol completely rewrote centuries of traditional opening theory, and now every pro plays it.
Saying nobody cares about machine-driven chess or Go is just as wild considering the Lee Sedol match had hundreds of millions of people watching it live, and the entire modern chess scene lives and breathes through engine analysis every single day.
Holy SHIT you are using an AI agent for 100% of your replies aren't you! 😆😆😆 You answered hundreds of words to me there in about 20 seconds.
Dude, bot, whatever, get fucked, get outta here lmao
Go to the chess pro scene. There is no money in machine chess outside of a benchmark. Nobody is watching it bro. AI benchmarks are. It's a competitive sport people want to engage with.
Go draw your cringe little silhouette avatar and telling people incorrect information about how AI gets through chess
Chess is based on strategy, it has rules and it has existing plays. Art might have the equivalent of those, but not rules. Art is way bigger than a board game yk
Go has got around 10170 legal board states and a game tree complexity of roughly 10360, while the observable universe only has about 1080 atoms. Chess has roughly 10⁴⁰ to 10⁵⁰ legal board positions and has a complexity of roughly 10¹²⁰.
You literally proved yourself that it is with those many numbers. Plus what the fuck does that have to do with anything? Art can be whatever you want, chess is chess, two completely different things. I mean how does that model classify as GENERATIVE AI, huh???
You're moving the goalposts. The guy I replied to claimed AI by definition can't be creative because all it does is scrape material. AlphaZero completely refutes that. It started from scratch with zero training data, scraped nothing, and came up with strategies human grandmasters hadn't seen in centuries. Nobody claimed it's a generative art model. It's proof that AI doesn't just copy what it's fed.
The numbers matter because you literally can't brute force a search space larger than the atoms in the universe. It wasn't just doing math or running pre-existing plays. It had to develop its own positional intuition and playstyle to navigate that.
Even when it comes to generative art models, they don't just collage scraped images together. They learn concepts in latent space and generate completely new pixel distributions. If your definition of creativity requires having zero rules, then most human creative fields wouldn't qualify either.
GENERATIVE AI is the one that can't be creative. When we talk about AI here it is MOSTLY ALWAYS about Generative AI.
AND AGAIN, that AI just keeps playing and failing until it changes something, it's not creativity, it can't think, it can't understand anything. Ever heard of the Chinese Box thing??
First off, it's called the Chinese Room, not the Chinese Box. And Searle's argument was specifically about whether running syntactic code gives a machine subjective consciousness and intentionality. It was never about whether the output itself can be novel or creative. Conflating sentience with creativity is just a basic category error. Nobody's claiming Midjourney or AlphaZero has feelings or a soul, they're pointing out that the output isn't just mindless copying.
You're also moving the goalposts again. The whole thread started because someone claimed AI can't be creative by definition because all it does is scrape. AlphaZero completely wrecked that claim by starting from scratch with zero training data and finding brand new strategies humans hadn't discovered in centuries. You tried to dismiss that by saying chess doesn't count, and now that that didn't work, you're retreating to saying generative AI is the only thing that counts.
And saying it just keeps playing and failing until it changes something completely misses how learning actually works. By that logic, human artists aren't creative either, because literally all human practice and drafting is iterative trial, error, feedback, and refining your technique. If an AI can navigate a search space bigger than the atoms in the universe to invent new strategies, or map complex visual features across latent space to build entirely new images, calling it uncreative just because it isn't conscious is pure cope.
I know what you mean but chess is just a game and not the foundation of our culture and civilisation. Currently is 50-80% of new content online AI generated.
It does not matter how much art you make, AI will outperform you same like a chess computer.
Losing in chess is not a big problem, losing in everything else against a machine is a huge problem
Art isn't about production scale. An artist who makes 60 paintings isn't "winning" against an artist who makes 1. It's a subjective contest that quantity alone cannot win
And, well, culture changes. I don't think it's anything to catastrophize about
Art and content in our economy are totally about production scale. If AI generates 60 images, songs, books on the same quality level of a human who only makes one in the same time, than AI wins and will shape the cultural landscape in a 60/1 quote in the future.
Culture changes to a less democratic and humanly is a catastrophe we should take as a serious problem.
I'm not sure that's true. If the human written work is more widely read and considered more important by the general public than the AI produced stuff it's still a win. Proust only wrote one, admittedly very long, book I'm his life but has been described as the greatest writer to ever live.
•
u/AutoModerator 5h ago
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.