this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
212 points (90.2% liked)

Technology

34788 readers
344 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

AI singer-songwriter 'Anna Indiana' debuted her first single 'Betrayed by this Town' on X, formerly Twitter—and listeners were not too impressed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Right just as soon as all the people proclaiming that can point to the soul bit of my brain. There is absolutely no reason to say that AI cannot be creative there's nothing fundamentally magic about creativity that means only humans can do it.

[–] TheActualDevil@sffa.community 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You're equating creativity to the soul. They're not the same thing. But we can definitely look at the brain and see what parts light up when perform creative tasks.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Right so why can't the same sections be simulated? If you accept that the human brain is simply an organic implementation of a neural network, then you have to accept that a synthetic implementation can achieve the same thing.

The idea that the human brain is special is ludicrous and completely without evidence

[–] TheActualDevil@sffa.community 3 points 11 months ago

I mean, I'm not arguing anything other than your false equivalent. I'm sure, at some point, we'll be able to mimic how the human brain actually works, not just imitate the results. But we're not even close right now. Not in the same ball park. Not in the same tri-state area. We still don't really understand how it does what it does completely. We know some of the processes, and understand that's it's chemicals interacting with the meat in some way, but it's still mostly kinda just weird stuff our body does. We're mostly just pointing at areas that light up with activity when we do a thing and saying "yep, that's the general area that's doing stuff."

And that's just understanding it, let alone figuring out how to imitate it with technology. And none of those parts of the brain work independently. They're spread out and they overlap and exchange and change information constantly, all with chemicals. Getting a computer to mimic the outcome is still something we're far from, but without the same processes, its not really gonna come out the same. We've got just... so long to go before we actually get close to simulating a human brain.

And just for fun, I do think this line of yours is funny:

The idea that the human brain is special is ludicrous and completely without evidence

Again, I wasn't saying anything of any sort, and I'm still not really taking any stance beyond "that shits complicated and we're not there yet." But you're supposing that a "synthetic implementation can achieve the same thing." ... without supporting evidence. This argument was clearly meant for someone else, but it's not really fair to demand evidence from someone for their claim when you don't support your own. Jumping to the conclusion that something is impossible is the same as assuming it's definitely possible. You don't know that. I don't know that. No one really knows that until it's done.

[–] Mahlzeit@feddit.de 2 points 11 months ago

The belief that only humans can be creative is interestingly parallel to intelligent design creationism. The latter is fundamentally a religious faith, but it strongly appeals to the intuition that anything that happens needs a humanoid creator.

[–] Knusper@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago

I don't think, the human brain is special either, but we are still two big steps ahead IMHO:

  • We can perceive what we've generated, to judge whether it's good or bad.
  • We perceive many, many inputs throughout our lives. Not just text, visuals, audio, but also taste, smell, touch and more. To be simultaneously creative and relatable to humans, AIs would need to be equipped with these concepts and would need to be given 'memories', which are fleshed out with all these kinds of input.