@thomasfuchs they created the machine rights movement
Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
enzo (enzo@mstdn.social)'s status on Saturday, 02-Mar-2024 23:56:27 JST enzo -
Embed this notice
RevK :verified_r: (revk@toot.me.uk)'s status on Sunday, 03-Mar-2024 00:04:40 JST RevK :verified_r: @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.
Not trying to defend AI crap, honest.
-
Embed this notice
AN/CRM-114 (flyingsaceur@ioc.exchange)'s status on Sunday, 03-Mar-2024 07:04:26 JST AN/CRM-114 @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
-
Embed this notice
Smoljaguar (smoljaguar@spacey.space)'s status on Sunday, 03-Mar-2024 09:42:43 JST Smoljaguar @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?
-
Embed this notice
Smoljaguar (smoljaguar@spacey.space)'s status on Sunday, 03-Mar-2024 10:20:33 JST Smoljaguar @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.
-
Embed this notice