@revk What we have right now that is "generative AI" doesn't create anything new though, it just remixes from corpus of existing data. Essentially it is not capable of making conceptual leaps because it doesn't have concepts.
@thomasfuchs Algorithms can definitely make things that as a final product is not the same as something that ever existed itself before. So in a way "creative" in that respect, I guess.
And largely a lot of things humans create are based on the fact that things already exist and they take the next logical step and make something new.
@thomasfuchs Because they use algorithms to do “creative work”. So by telling them the tool is not creative, you’re telling them that they are not creative. Which is true, but they take it as a personal insult. Which it is
@thomasfuchs@revk what does it mean for a concept to be "new" anyway? Some philosophers (e.g. Platonists) might say that all concepts already exist in the world around us, and we are simply discovering them. How would you say that we can prove that truly new concepts can be created?
@Smoljaguar Modern neuroscience does not know how brains work even for automated things like making your heart beat—and it very much has no clue to how consciousness, creativity or self-awareness works.
@thomasfuchs I was more asking how you'd define human creativity if not synthesis of pre-existing ideas. Because I was reading about the modern neuroscience take on free will, and it seems to give a strong srgument against it. And if you don't have free will, I can't see how you can argue it is possible to have creativity/spontaneity in humans.
@Smoljaguar in low-level research of neurons there’s actually signs that quantum mechanics play a rule, making brains literally unmeasurable and non-deterministic