Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sumane12 t1_iwb1tiy wrote

Reply to comment by Mandamelon in AI Drew This Gorgeous Comic Series, But You'd Never Know It by rpaul9578

But if an artist ever looks at a different artists work, he is being influenced by that work in much the same way an AI would be, the argument here is to say only art created by an artist blind from birth (who's also never heard, felt or taken in any data in anyway about someone else's art, or had any positive or negative feedback) could be considered original art

6

DerivingDelusions t1_iwek2vb wrote

Yes, the artist and the AI create original works. However, there is a difference in how ai vs humans can be inspired.

The difference between an artist and a neural network is that an artist can take inspiration and make it their own by incorporating their own ideas. A neural network actively tries to generalize work in order to reduce a cost function. The universal approximation theorem also tells us that neural networks approximate continuous functions, meaning they are following a predetermined pattern. In this case, inspiration for neural comes from generalizing other works (matching the distribution), which creates original works, but does not allow for the AI to incorporate its own unique ideas (since it’s mathematically not designed to)

1

sumane12 t1_iwg7h7z wrote

And if you can prove humans do not generalise from other work, or patterns found in nature or elsewhere, then you deserve a Nobel prize.

Ultimately our pattern recognition is the same in function as any AI (although may be programmed differently). We cannot extrapolate truly inspirational ideas, we are only able to merge key features of different patterns in a novel way. True inspiration is a fallacy.

1