Once again, that is an incredibly strong assertion and if you wish to be reasonable then the burden of proof is on you to prove those parameters before making such claims (e.g. that creativity = math).

The notion that creativity lies beyond what is systemetizable (or otoh, the value in creativity is to defy that which can be computed), seems more in line with my sense of it.

good point, as an artist the joy is in creating - the result is not that important, but that is my work, other artists results can be very dear to me.

LLM and text-to-image models already show empirically that creativity is computable, of course, as the AI effect[1] says, if a machine did it, then it's just predicting the next word or rearranging pixels (which doesn't really make sense), if a human did it, then it's intelligence or creativity.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect

The reverse is also true which makes your entire point hypocritically paradoxical. If a human makes it we immediately assume it can be computed (creativity). That is the strong claim which I think requires the burden of proof.

What is the paradox of both humans and machines showing signs of creativity?

I'm pointing out that your "AI Effect" is one-sided in the wrong direction.

Surely you agree that we care more to prove the affirmative of whether a machine is conscious rather than prove that it isn't. If not, I don't think we can proceed.

The issue is that the AI Effect you linked is often actually used in the reverse, including by yourself, where the burden of proof should be to prove a machine is NOT conscious. However, like we've agreed, we care for proof in the affirmative.

Thus, the paradox lies in that the "AI Effect" concept is critical of those demanding the proof which is more valuable.

I don't know where the concept of "consciousness" came from in the discussion but as I said in the first comment these models already empirically show intelligence and creativity, proving otherwise would be much more meaningful than aligning with the evidence.

Yeah I think my point flew over your head, which is fine.

And you're incorrect - you cannot "empirically prove creativity". As a professional artist I don't think you quite understand that the type of creativity we are interested in is not just "permutation", there is clearly a human component.

I'm trying to show you that you are falling into the reverse of the AI effect by assuming that permutation is creativity.

It doesn't seem like you can even define creativity in the first place for any of us to even attempt to answer your supposed point that flew over everyone's heads.

I have defined it in your other comment, relax dude. No need to jump threads because you're emotional.

>you're incorrect - you cannot "empirically prove creativity"

Do humans even have creativity at this point or do you require a formal proof even for that? Ahah

>As a professional artist

Now I understand where the friction against accepting that even machines show signs of creativity comes from, I imagine you're an illustrator, so the feeling of becoming obsolete is the bias against machines.

First of all, we're discussing stock photography, not art. Second of all, Turing's arguments for why the Turing machine is a decent model of the brain seem pretty hard to bet against, and the Turing machine underlies all computation.

No - we're discussing whether someone producing stock photography can be trained in the same sense as a.i. However, I will give you that I'm potentially falsely assuming creativity is required to a comparable degree to art.

Also, gun-to-my-head I would not bet on creativity being systemetizable, so I completely disagree.

You know, I actually think you're right about the process, but totally wrong about the results. Yes, AI art is different in terms of creativity. It is only grounded in reality to a lesser extent than human creativity.

Where you're going wrong is what society will go for. Given the choice between reality and fantasy ... society will choose fantasy. AI will "win" fantasy, hands down.

AI will always lose because the result can only be a permutation of what already exists and the next artist will grow up and push the boundary - hence, AI will always lag behind the tip of the spear which is human creativity.

Not to mention, you are already wrong because art communities around human art are thriving now more than ever for the simple fact that the result of AI itself is non-communal (does not produce thriving community) and cannot compete at the bleeding edge of style.

Again, this is already happening regardless of your armchair hypothesis.

If the brain is a physical object that computes, and we have creativity, it stands to reason that creativity is computable. Why would you assume that creativity is not systematizable when we already have evidence on the physicality of the brain influencing behavior (ie cut out one part, personality changes, take drugs like LSD that change the chemical components of the brain, notice that creativity improves)?

Your assumption is IMO unfounded, it actually seems like you have the burden of proof given what I said above. Just because it seems more in line with your sense of it doesn't make it true, seems like you think creativity is some mystical nonphysical force (because if it were physical, it would be able to be modeled and computed, as the parent says).

Edit, I see, you're an artist so it's likely why you believe in creativity as a nonphysical force. I've noticed that many artists say this, with no evidence, while most engineers say the opposite, that it's systematized, likely that's why we're in our respective fields.

Once again since you missed the entire point: I don't believe creativity is non-physical, I believe it is non-systematizable, and my brother achieving a PhD in computational neuroscience from a top university actually initially shared this with me.

How are you defining systematizable? As in, creativity can be made via a systematic process? How do you think a brain works, physically speaking, otherwise? As others have mentioned, it is you who holds the burden of proof, not everyone else who already knows that the brain produces creativity.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and re-read the thread.

Creativity: producing what is novel + valuable

Systematizable: can be enumerated via algorithmic operations

"As others have mentioned": that is not an argument

"not everyone else who already knows": also not an argument

Now, my point is that creativity as defined above requires a burden of proof to be defined as systemetizable. For instance, mathematical leaps are often achieved by a spark of "creativity" which breaks existing structures in a way which is difficult to grasp, and to call this systemetizable is a leap that requires a complex argument calling upon deep notions of computational theory and computational neuroscience (like producing a topological map of the creative structure of the brain and proving that it can be mimicked by a listable process).

Now, to apply this to art in a convincing way would surely be even harder. Do you at least understand my point? Or is "brain = physics = creative" satisfactory enough for you still? Thanks for reading in good faith this time. :)

I'd argue that the presence of anything in the brain which violates the laws of physics (necessary for the above claim to be false) is equivalent to Russells teapot, and absent extraordinary evidence it's a reasonable assumption to make that the brain adheres to known physics.

Adhering to physics does not necessarily imply that creativity is systematizable.

Yes, it does, because if the brain adheres to known physics it means the brain has the same limits on computability as any other universal turing machine, and while replicating the process can still be difficult, it can't be impossible.