Re:Show HN: Paint yourself in the style of classic art, in y...
by ak93 on Monday October 02, 2017 @11:35PM
(#15389912)
I think the definition of "creativity" is very vague when we try to explain that in terms of computer or AI. Generative artwork/systems, which are highly random tends to appear "creative" and not just any "imitation".
Re:Show HN: Paint yourself in the style of classic art, in y...
by vacri on Monday October 02, 2017 @07:52PM
(#15388946)
> Of course, computers can't be creative, so it is just imitation.
I take it that you've never worked in IT support :)
Re:Show HN: Paint yourself in the style of classic art, in y...
by SimbaOnSteroids on Monday October 02, 2017 @07:44PM
(#15388912)
This assumes creativity is anything more than copying from multiple sources.
Re:Show HN: Paint yourself in the style of classic art, in y...
by musage on Monday October 02, 2017 @10:20PM
(#15389627)
If it's not more, how come there is anything to copy from?
Re:Show HN: Paint yourself in the style of classic art, in y...
by reiinakano on Monday October 02, 2017 @10:33PM
(#15389687)
Copying from nature with tiny little variations I guess?
Re:Show HN: Paint yourself in the style of classic art, in y...
by musage on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @04:11AM
(#15390932)
Little compared to what? They're infinitely big compared to no variations. Ignoring that part because it's unclear is like throwing out the baby and keeping the bathwater to me.
Re:Show HN: Paint yourself in the style of classic art, in y...
by tbabb on Monday October 02, 2017 @08:48PM
(#15389186)
What is your definition of "creative"?
Re:Show HN: Paint yourself in the style of classic art, in y...
by robbrown451 on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @03:25AM
(#15390767)
Having the ability to make something original, I suppose. But then you can question what is original.
I tend to think everything is somewhat derivative. But some things more than others. The things that are the least derivative, are the most creative.
And what this program does is more creative than most things computer programs do, and probably more creative than lots of things that, if a human did it, you'd call "creative."
In my opinion, it is one step -- and an impressive step -- in the direction of computers being able to actually be creative. The areas where humans can do something that computers can't is shrinking. You can dismiss it if you want, but at what point will you acknowledge that what the computer is doing isn't simply imitation? I guess you can keep moving the goalposts, but to me, this is pretty impressive.