Re:Not by AI
by IIAOPSW on Thursday March 16, 2023 @09:59AM
(#35182057)
There's two variations, one stupid one not. The stupid one is "novelty no longer exists and maybe never did". You've covered it. The not stupid one is this question about the closure under creativity in the same sense that numbers are closed under multiplication and addition. Sure you can make infinite numbers, but you can never multiply and add your way to a cat, because a cat isn't a number. Is everything we do rearrangement of basic known parts much like numerics is rearrangement of basic known digits? Its a deep question.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Not by AI
by AnimalMuppet on Thursday March 16, 2023 @12:05PM
(#35183802)
Your "deep question" fails to address gspencley's point: If everything we do is a rearrangement of basic known parts, where and when did we get the basic known parts? From cavemen? From apes? From protozoa? Someone, at some time came up with the basic known parts.
So, was that real creativity, or not? If not, why not? If the parts are really "basic", they didn't come from other, pre-existing parts.
And if it was real creativity, why is it impossible for us to do the same?
Re:Not by AI
by resource0x on Thursday March 16, 2023 @01:14PM
(#35184969)
If you need examples of creativity, look at the math. Math is full of the novel (at the time of invention) concepts: complex numbers, groups, automorphisms, etc., etc.
None of these concepts can be obtained by rearranging the "parts". Sometimes a new concept requires the invention of "parts" that had never existed before, and, in turn, becomes a "part" in the future inventions.
All the advances relying on new concepts and discoveries or inventions in science, math, logic and technology would suggest that the basic known parts are not set. So yes, there's been plenty of genuine novelty. Culture as well as new forms of music, food and entertainment come into existence. New words are always being coined as languages are fluid.