Why do some people say AI can't be creative?
>>128336313Only leftists are against generative AI.
>>128337438saarSAAR
>>128337438I thought the people who are always "retvrn to tradition" including art would be the MOST against AI art
>>128337573Any time you see someone seething over AI art, it's always a lefty troon like >>128337473.
>>128337573There’s a branch of right wing accelerationists who believe the singularity and fascist utopia will be brought about when man merges with machine
>>128337584SAAR I FUCK YOU BLOODY BITCH
>>128337573Rightoids don't have working brains. They are performative NPCs who need to know what others think about something before making a decision. They have 0 consistency in their beliefs and will change views on a dime whenever it's politically expedient for them. They will seethe about Jews in one post while supporting Israel in the next. They will make fun of leftists for having corporate support behind them one year and then support billion dollar AI companies in the next.
>>128337700>the government is corrupt and fascist and evil and capitalist >LETS MAKE IT BIGGERaverage leftgroid
>>128337573They initially were, that's where the "slop" term came from, until they saw fedifags crying over it and decided to become contrarian
>>128337573I'm not "return to tradition"... I just asked a simple question.
>>128337639Holy shit. I was just talking about AI-made music. You took the discussion to an extreme subject for no reason. That was like saying that rock music is intrinsically undesirable because nazi black metal exists. I know these accelerationists but don't care about their ideas, now can you answer what I'm asking? Or is your paranoia too intense for that? It seems you people hate AI for very weird political reasons.
>>128337875Im actually not against AI, I think man’s destiny is to become one with tech. Chips in our brains, cyborg limbs, etc. idk why people fear it so much. White collar cucks who are afraid that their fake jobs will be automated maybe. AI is an extension of humanity so of course it can be creative
>>128337716Like look at this one, it can't address any of my points so it conjures up a strawman I never said and gets mad at that. Actual human beings don't do this.
>>128337438>Only leftists complain about palantir>Only leftists care about the epstein listYou have to be paid to be this stupid
>>128337897>They will seethe about Jews in one post while supporting Israel in the next.Literally 0% of people do this.>They will make fun of leftists for having corporate support behind them one year and then support billion dollar AI companies in the next.Because the right doesn’t mind siding with corporations, the left does. They are pointing of your hypocrisy
>>128336313Because they're obviously not alive.Do you even understand what creation involves?It's called artifice. You need to be capable of being deceptive, artful to create artifice.AIs can only simulate the appearance of noisy output from a dataset that looks so randum xD that NPCs can mistake it for creation
>>128337895I may live long enough to see the first billionaire leave his estate to the AI controlled robot he 'uploaded' his consciousness to by training it to be a greedy bigoted cocksucker just like him
because it can only do variations, best composers are only 80% derivative, AI are always 100%, and there is an abyss between the two
I've never heard an AI song that could end up in a playlist of mine or even be a song that I would remember hearing. AI songs, sound 'Good' but never branch into being something someone would actually listen to.
>>128337700it’s cognitive dissonance and it’s not all right wingers, the left/right dichotomy is not useful now it’s both extreme wings against the middle
>>128336313Anon, AI literally relies on human-made content to feed its algorithm. I'm not being facetious, that's literally how AI works. It takes a database of content that humans already made, steals it, and reworks it algorithmically. There's nothing fancy about AI, it's not creative. That's just not how AI works. >But humans also rely on other humans for inspiration! Yes but the difference is humans can create original works through experience that AI is incapable of having because an AI only exists on a server in a warehouse. Also, wholly generated AI works must be public domain specifically because of their reliance on a collection of existing works.
>>128337919Rightoids love Palantir>>128337921>Literally 0% of people do this.And look at this one. It tries to gaslight you into something easily observable on this website every single day.
>>128337438>128337584>>128337716This retard is shitposting>>128337473>128337573>>128337662>128337700>>128338093This retard is taking obvious bait>noooo you can't quote too many posters saaaar our system thinks its spam saaaar!
>>128337934>Do you even understand what creation involves? It's called artifice. You need to be capable of being deceptive, artful to create artifice.From where did you take that AI can't deceive? I don't see any limitation preventing them from doing it, even if they don't do it commonly.>AIs can only simulate the appearance of noisy output from a dataset that looks so randum xD that NPCs can mistake it for creationIf it's something new that they generated, why are you calling it "simulation" instead of "creation"? And if you're gonna deny randomness of their creations, why would you call human music random? What do humans have of random that AIs don't?
>>128338168>If it's something new that they generatedThat's the issue, AI can't really create anything "new", that's not how AI works anon
>>128336313I don't hate AI slop as much as I'm annoyed by the kneejerk rationalizations of its unironic defenders.
>>128338058Record labels hope they can use the AI they trained on the artists in their catalog who they currently pay residuals to in order to create novel works by fake artists they don't have to pay a red cent. Ideally, people will listen to these fake artists to the exclusion of the irritating artists whose creative output the AI plundered
Let's see AI's innovative music then
>>128337972>because it can only do variationsWhat do you even mean by "variation"? Do you think AI music is something like a copy of other works but in another key or something like that (obviously more elaborately "variated", but still only a replication)? Where did you read that?
>>128338199It still can't be copyrighted, which means while you can still profit off of AI works, you also can't stop anyone from stealing said works from you. The future of online music pretty much just going to be endless AI spam as people rip eachother off with impunity. I actually hope this happens because it means people will be forced to go outside again to hear "real music" and I hope AI truly does create a dead internet because we shouldn't be taking anything online seriously anyways and it'll be the death of social media which is a good thing
>>128338220Let's pay more for electricity and only take showers/do laundry on days starting with the letter T for the sake of the precious data centers while we're at it.
>>128338242Fingers crossed. I'm looking into flip phones
>>128337573So much modern conservatism is bound up in resentment, vengeance and victim complex relating to the the left when the pendulum has swung to that side, that a lot of otherwise "trad" chuds embrace AI either out of a desire to feel culturally superior to the liberal gatekeepers or out of just wanting to see leftists seethe about it. tl;dr society is collapsing
>>128338058>the difference is humans can create original works through experience that AI is incapable of having because an AI only exists on a server in a warehouseOriginal how? What is "original" to you? Similar but not equal? AIs do exactly that. And define "experience"?>Also, wholly generated AI works must be public domain specifically because of their reliance on a collection of existing worksAgain, this "reliance on a collection of existing works" also happens in human music and no one says humans cannot make "original" music because of that.
>>128338168>What do humans have of random that AIs don't?The spark of human ingenuity, something AI will never have and will never be able to convincingly replicate (at least LLMs as they're designed now won't).>>128338242>it'll be the death of social media which is a good thingLol you underestimate the stupidity of the average person. And while that may happen, it probably won't in our lifetimes
>>128338188>AI can't really create anything "new"That's just false. By your definition of novelty, no human song can be something actually new.
>>128338320Humans are capable of creating things in complete isolation, AI can't
>>128338220You're redefining words so that the music you're against is not "innovative".
>>128338341>>128338356>>128338320This poster is a bot btw
>>128338327>The spark of human ingenuityYou keep using poetic terms to create a fake exclusivity to human music. Aren't you people the ones that talk about AI "hallucinations" everytime? And now it can't be ingenuous?
>>128338342You moved the goalposts but okay: if AI were to act without obvious and delimited human instructions, would you then finally admit they are doing exactly what humans do? Because the chance of that happening gets less remote every day.
>>128338390>You keep using poetic terms to create a fake exclusivity to human music.Because human creativity isn't some easily quantifiable thing, nor should it be. Again, AI in its current form will never be able to replicate this.>Aren't you people the ones that talk about AI "hallucinations" everytime?...no? AI hallucinations are just a dearth of good data for a certain topic/thing. The more data points you feed an LLM, the better they get at their function.You really sound like a retard that doesn't understand what an LLM is at a fundamental level so you think they're this amazing revolutionary technology. They aren't. They just seem impressive because they're relatively fast and we now have dedicated hardware that specializes in the calculations they need done. They've been around in their basic form for like a half-century.
>>128338537You're literally replying to a bot anon, don't waste your breath
>>128338221AI music sounds like an average of a genre, style or micro-style of music - they Do make """new music""", and yeah they are not simple variations of specific music pieces, its more general : it can make ""new music"" in a genre like dream pop, but they will be devoid of any innovative ideas, they only take the 'general' of the genre, the basic shared foundation, that hundreds of songs share - the average. And it can make infinite 'variation' of these unoriginal new songs. Name one genre, one style of music created by AI, or even one (1) original idea that could be developed to create a new, recognizable, unique band.You can't, and if AI could create new ideas, new genres, etc. by combining the ideas in human music that it has understood, then you would know, because AI could develop the ideas and genres it had created itself into others new ideas and genre, and so on, and so forth: there would be a colossal, exponential, unimaginable explosion of creativity in music. It didn't happen. Because creating new music ideas (that are good on a emotionnal level, obviously) isn't just about calcul
>>128337573You'd think so but then you remember the right-wing modus operandi boils down to nothing more than "do the opposite of leftists".
You are all just complicated automata. What, you think you there is something uniquely special that can't be replicated? All your thoughts and emotions are based on neural activity and at the most fundamental you're made of quantum particles. Everything about your thought process can and will be replicated by a machine.
*fart noises*
Based if you actually built the robo but cringe if you pay for a subscription to use it.
>>128338537 >Because human creativity isn't some easily quantifiable thing, nor should it be. Again, AI in its current form will never be able to replicate this.If you aren't able to point out a clear distinction to me, why are you even defending this supposed "human creativity" in opposition to AI creativity?>AI hallucinations are just a dearth of good data for a certain topic/thing. The more data points you feed an LLM, the better they get at their function.Btw I confused ingenuity with naivety, I'm ESL. Ingenuity as the capacity of invention is even more ambiguous and unclear to differenciate that of humans and AIs. You can use whatever words you want: "new", "original", "authentic", "invention", "creation", "work" etc. It's reducible to poetry, not an actual point being made. You'd write a pretty book eulogizing humanity.>You're a fool, LLMs are not revolutionary>They've been around in their basic form for like a half-century.So... What's your point?
>>128339012>Name one genre, one style of music created by AI, or even one (1) original idea that could be developed to create a new, recognizable, unique band.>You can't, and if AI could create new ideas, new genres, etc. by combining the ideas in human music that it has understood, then you would know, because AI could develop the ideas and genres it had created itself into others new ideas and genre, and so on, and so forth: there would be a colossal, exponential, unimaginable explosion of creativity in music.>It didn't happen.So back when there weren't many music genres created by humans and we were, say, just pounding primitive drums without any skill, it was a prediction that humans would never get to create better and more developed music? You're anticipating history and drawing your conclusion about AI music in a moment too early. Maybe give them some more time to develop these things that you presume they never will just by judging their current state.
>>128336313Why does that guit6only jave 5 atrings?
/biz/ thread is zzz
