Take artists, for example. Before they develop their own style, they spend years studying and imitating others. Their "new" ideas aren't really new, just different enough from what we remember to feel fresh. Sure, there are painting elephants who aren't "standing on the shoulders of giants," but their "art" is like saying, "Wow, GPT-2 finally wrote a decent email."
Even before AI, people were saying, "All the good music's been written," "All the great films have been made," "All the best books..." You get the idea. We're mostly just mixing and matching now, but that's exactly what AI does too.
So either we can't create anything truly "new" without building on our "old" stuff (which used to be "new" once upon a time), or generative models can create "new" things just like we do. Your thoughts?
https://pressbooks.ccconline.org/introtophilosophy/chapter/5....
Obviously, I'm talking about art at its highest level -- the average Marvel movie does not have such lofty goals, and I have no doubt a machine can reproduce all the same tired tropes of a Marvel movie. If all you're familiar with is derivative pop culture, I can see how one might think that AI can do just as well. But I don't think anyone who has ever had a profound engagement with a work of art would agree.
I am sure there will be an explosion of AI-generated content in the coming months, but I suspect this will inadvertently advance everyone's aesthetic education. More and more people will be disappointed by AI-generated "art," and I think they'll start to appreciate genuine human creativity more.
And like maybe creativity is really ultimately just curation, and like how does AI/LLMs sell people on their vision. chatGPT can’t just library of Babel their way to creativity.
I don’t think that AI will never be creative but I think it’s a deeper philosophical question then yes/no.