Thank you for providing a clear example of what I term "selling humanity short"
None of human art exists outside the extremely complex cultural evolution history where bits and pieces of perceived reality are internalized by individuals (using entirely novel and evolving mental models and representations that we hardly understand) and is then communicated, gets transplanted and recognized as similar experiences in the brains of other humans, in an ever evolving chain of brain to brain interactions via (much more mundane) physical channels.
To make all this extraordinary stuff fit the current AI narrative people opt to wield a dehumanizing sledgehammer to eliminate anything but the in / out information processing concept (ignoring the garbage-in / garbage-out problem).
But just to play along for the sake of the argument, for AI to create "art", it would have to ingest a body of boring mystery whodunit prose and decide to write a poem about it.
That's just a description of what the AI is doing with a tacked on group interaction that AI will do when more AI art is available.
>dehumanizing sledgehammer
In other words people tend to be objective, i disagree but i don't see the problem. If our only difference is because we can anthropomorphize humans better than AIs then there is no objective difference.
But just to play along for the sake of the argument, for Humans to create "art", it would have to ingest a body of boring mystery whodunit prose and be guided to write a poem about it.
What if they're just statistics plus some randomizer?
Secodly, humans take only a few examples while AI needs trillions. AI built on a few examples would not have enough data.
The size of the data sets is not so different, humans take millions of examples within millions of examples over decades from birth to produce anything of substance.
>Both of these things absorb huge data sets
Yes, and this point the AI is probably absorbing more total data, but the human understands structure of that data better. A good new book isn't just some new variation of concept, the author has a structured understanding of the relevant work that came before - and it's emotional and cultural impact, and intelligently builds on that. It may be that the AI is doing the computer equivalent of this process. But AI might never write Lord of the Rings because an AI never served in WW1 as a formative experience in it's youth. That's just one more thing that was in Tolkein's "data set". Is great AI fiction only capable of being appreciated by other AI who have the same shared experience?
Never served in a WW yet
For example, humans started making computer games, but there were no computer games before, and now we have all these genres and stuff. Humans are capable of doing creative novel works from nothing. So you personally might be an uncreative automaton who just copies what others said or did, but that isn't normal, other humans can think in novel ways.
If you mention Pong or Spacewar, you've already lost. Table tennis and the Lensman books, respectively.
Literally anything humans do is based on prior influences, referents and data. There's no aether out of which the "spark" of inspiration strikes, nor does anything emerge from the pure vaccuum, creativity is just neurons doing what they will with the information they already have. Therefore the only difference between human genius and the mediocre output of AIs is complexity, and the only question worth asking is how far that gap can reasonably be bridged.
It's understandable that this is upsetting, because it threatens one of the last bastions of human divinity, and no one really wants to believe human beings in all their splendor, subtlety and complexity are just a pile of ad-hoc stochastic wetware algorithms running on a hemisphere of gelatinous goo, no more divine than a stone on the ground, but eventually as this technology matures we're going to have to come to terms with the fact that creativity can be manufactured, just like anything else, and like anything manufactured, its quality will inevitably surpass anything humans are capable of.
Humans are capable of being creative similarly to how the Go AI is capable of being creative, statistical AI's that just copies doesn't seem to be capable of such creativity.
Angry Birds: "a sketch of stylized wingless birds[1]", apparently, and games using that basic physics go back ages, and are inspired by cannon warfare[2]
Snake: all Snake games are based on Blockade, published by Gremlin industries, where I found this[3] on an interesting site HN might like
"[Lane Hauck] While we were designing wall games, I was tinkering in the back room with a video circuit that became our Blockade game board. I kept showing my work to Frank Fogleman and Jerry, pestering them with the “can we get into video now?” question. I made a 32x24 cell frame buffer with graphical characters. I was intrigued by the random walk in Physics…which said a drunk taking steps in random directions around a lamppost would gravitate to the lamppost. I decided to program an arrow to be the drunk, and watched it flit around the screen for about a minute before getting bored. Then I thought, what if the drunk can’t visit the same square twice? I made that adjustment, and watched the arrow move a bit and then get trapped. The step from there to Blockade was a small one. (Hauck 2012)"
[1] https://www.cleverism.com/why-angry-birds-got-successful/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery_game
[3] http://allincolorforaquarter.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-ultima...
Which begs the question: why would individuals intentionally diminish the own status when there is nothing much objective to support it?
I guess it is for them to answer this, but what I would volunteer as a possibility is the enormous power of collective mental models / narratives. By adopting the "brain is a computer" narrative you become member (or aspired to become) of a certain social group that, incidentally, has been "winning" in a certain socio-economic context.
We have a very similar algorithm to AI for creating 'new' things, that never really strays from our data sets.
This is just fitting the data to your assumption. It's like saying humans just get in the car and use their eyes to drive. While it might be objectively true to an extent, it is so misleading in what it falls to account for, which is actually relevant, that it's basically a useless statement.
We're just groups of tubes, you put food in one end and it shits it on the other end, in between these events we mostly run around and do meaningless things, from time to time we find more food to put in our tubes.
And i don't see any difference in human and AI within the context of creating art.
If you are trying to conflate those things, you need to do a better job.