Because - it's the part people are having hard time to accept - creativity was never the hard part. It's randomness. The hard part is navigating the narrow border between "not enough random, therefore boring" and "too much random, therefore unhinged/insane".
That border is determined not as much by ground truth, as by people's sentiment. As such, many famous artists and creatives never succeed navigating - their contemporaries would call them crazy, and then decades or centuries later, the border shifts, and suddenly they're remembered as greatest creators of their era.
That is not true at all. As I previously stated: reference, stealing well, blending styles in new ways that obey or break the rules of your art form… what appears random to outsiders is a story that follows as naturally as 2 after 1 if you understand the context.
Until an AI can have desires or experience life it cannot tell a story.
Even if it could it is questionable if such alien experience qualifies as story.
It can retell stories. It can swirl around extant media like a child playing with its dinner. It cannot blend in its own lived and new perspectives which is what gives new art value.
> what appears random to outsiders is a story that follows as naturally as 2 after 1 if you understand the context.
It's interesting to compare your opinion with Andrew Wiles quote:
> Perhaps I could best describe my experience of doing mathematics in terms of entering a dark mansion. You go into the first room and it's dark, completely dark. You stumble around, bumping into the furniture. Gradually, you learn where each piece of furniture is. And finally, after six months or so, you find the light switch and turn it on. Suddenly, it's all illuminated and you can see exactly where you were. Then you enter the next dark room...
Creativity unbound by reference is not even dada (which was reactionary) it is noise
Because - it's the part people are having hard time to accept - creativity was never the hard part. It's randomness. The hard part is navigating the narrow border between "not enough random, therefore boring" and "too much random, therefore unhinged/insane".
That border is determined not as much by ground truth, as by people's sentiment. As such, many famous artists and creatives never succeed navigating - their contemporaries would call them crazy, and then decades or centuries later, the border shifts, and suddenly they're remembered as greatest creators of their era.
That is not true at all. As I previously stated: reference, stealing well, blending styles in new ways that obey or break the rules of your art form… what appears random to outsiders is a story that follows as naturally as 2 after 1 if you understand the context.
Until an AI can have desires or experience life it cannot tell a story.
Even if it could it is questionable if such alien experience qualifies as story.
It can retell stories. It can swirl around extant media like a child playing with its dinner. It cannot blend in its own lived and new perspectives which is what gives new art value.
> what appears random to outsiders is a story that follows as naturally as 2 after 1 if you understand the context.
It's interesting to compare your opinion with Andrew Wiles quote:
> Perhaps I could best describe my experience of doing mathematics in terms of entering a dark mansion. You go into the first room and it's dark, completely dark. You stumble around, bumping into the furniture. Gradually, you learn where each piece of furniture is. And finally, after six months or so, you find the light switch and turn it on. Suddenly, it's all illuminated and you can see exactly where you were. Then you enter the next dark room...