How can creativity even be real? The amount of things that can be achieved are within a set...

Infinite monkey theorem

not an argument

>proclaims set is limited
>resorts to infinity when cornered

Veeky Forums you say?

My point is if a work will eventually be created creativity doesn't exist dip

an infinite set can be limited in relation to a set of infinite sets

try again brailet

how do you go from
>if a work will eventually be created
to
>creativity doesn't exist
?
I am tempted to conduct an investigation of your notion of creativity.

Refer toP1 Creativity is the ability for novelty (lets say for the universal set)
P2 Everything that can be accomplished is within a set
C Creativity cannot be factual

he believes that if you feed a neural network enough literary works it will start churning out masterpiece after masterpiece

in a sense he believes language to be a mathematical problem

Had this exact same argument with some mates and they basically stated being human is just different.

The way people enjoy art will usually be based on either the knowledge of the artists background or how it emotionally connects with them. Objectively I think robots could replace people in terms of art but with the knowledge that the art was created by a robot, a lot of people will reject it based upon that fact.

Appreciation of art is subjective hence all based upon the perception of the person reading, listening etc. To that piece.

sets can be infinte
sets can be recursive
sets can be both infinite and recursive (i.e. the set of all infinite sets)
ignoring the agrammatical abortion that is
>creativity is the ability for novelty
Time is a thing. It would not be creative to make something after it has already been made. That is copying. That is not novel.
It is creative to make something that has never been made, even if that thing is contained within the set of all things. The fact of it belonging to a set doesn't mean it already exists prior to its creation.

>science and logic develop
>logic
>develop
Does this even happen at this point?

Pure sophistry, I give your post 8/8 points
I have to wonder, though, who does actually care about AI making art? No reader or listener really wants it, wether they read Dante or Hunger Games or listen to classical music or dubstep. Is AI going to provide us with better art? No, and nobody even tries to argue otherwise. At best it will be of average quality. There's no practical purpose to all this shit, I'm convinced that it is only peddled by some Veeky Forumstards that don't care about art but want to prove their superiority to the humanities anyway, so they try to claim art as "theirs"/make it look inferior to science, sort of like dogs pissing on ground to mark their territory.

>The amount of things that can be achieved are within a set, and creativity can only be in that framework.

Who told you that, and what are their credentials?

Is this one of those threads where we argue about a word that means something else entirely to one or the other of us?
OP, be so kind to define what you mean by creativity before this gets out of hand.

Foucalt from Archaeology of Knowledge - “A language is still a system for possible statements, a finite body of rules that authorises an infinite number of performances. The field of discursive events, on the other hand, is a grouping that is always finite and limited at any moment to the linguistic sequences that have been formulated.”

Language limits thought, however it is the new meaning we subjectively derive from any text that we can define as "creative". A robot could easily produce a sentence that could be the source of new insight.

Quantity is illusory.

if reality is illusory then illusion is reality

Yes, sadly.

Robots can't understand the meaning behind words, literature isn't simply a string of words that make sense within a set of rules, conscious beings add a conceptual meaning to the symbols used in a language and that's something that robots can't yet do, maybe they won't ever be able to.

>YFW body-mind dualism is the only way for free will

How can it be creativity if it doesn't overcome the infinite

>Creativity is the ability for novelty
how so?

How not so

>Veeky Forums
>utter brainlet
every tiem

Not an argument brainlet

you are speaking about creativity on very abstract terms, which means most of your definitions will be based on assertions about the nature of creativity (creativity is equivalent to novelty, for one). in order to effectively make the claim you are making, you would have to analyze that which is referred to as 'creative' and demonstrate whether there is a common thread which we can call 'creativity' or whether the term is incomprehensible. the pseudo-set theory you are doing now is meaningless because it depends upon various assumptions about the terms you are using

>Infinite Money Theorem
Are you fucking retarded? Do you really wanna let a system generate random words until some meaningful shit comes out? What's the fucking point in that you autist?!

>Machine learning can emulate creativity just as easily
Nonsense. Machines have no Logos, can't aesthetics either. Never will be able to.

>creativity
>create

It's literally what humans do. We have invented and created since the beginning of time. The fact that you used a language created by man to make this post on a Japanese image board coded by a man is ironic.

This. The fact alone you made this thread with this idea you had means you went through a creative process in your brain. When you get to the core, creativity means the ability to come up with something on your own and then apply it. You came up with the idea that creativity isn't a thing that exist, and then uploaded it here, on a website another person came up with and created it. You say machine learning is the same thing, and well it is kinda, but the idea of a machine going through the creative process was conceived by a human first through creative process

Logos and aesthetics can be emulated. Just put in 50 greatest works of all time and the 51st would pop up. Checkmate

The things we can come up with already exist within a set of infinite ideas. Does that change anything

Oops

Creativity is limited by our understanding of the laws of the universe at any given time.
Yes, there should be an absolute limit to what is possible but that doesn't mean we're 'creating' in the same framework people did 1000 years ago or will a 1000 years from now.
So even if there's a potential creativity roof, that is all that's possible within the objective rules of reality, it's up to us to create and get as close to it as possible.

if a machine can do it and you can't than you lack creativity

The set happens to be big enough you couldn't just invent something new via brute force.

That is not emulation, that is copying. also all 50 works would need to have 1 aesthetic

aesthetics cant be varied?

Give to a machine Homer, Proust, Hemingway and Poe. What does the machine create aestethically? A fucking mess at best.

What about 50 works of Poe?

This would imply that there is a singular essential characteristic of an author across his works, something like the auteur theory in cinema which is widely scorned. The linguistic patterns that a computer would spot would probably be bad prose habits and hackneyed phrases rather than some sort of artistic genius. It could doubtless recreate the meter and many wine dark seas and rosey fingered dawns of the Illiad, but what of Homer's extended metaphors?

This thread is a bit like a meta discussion of Walter Benjamin's Art ... Mechanical Reproduction essay.

So this is the power of analytic philosophy...

Yes the amount of 'things' are within a set but that set has near infinite factors and variables that dealing with them within an even further limited set is impossible. If machine learning can emulate creativity 'just as easily' we'd have machine-learned creativity, ironically manufactured by creative minds (plural) in the first place.

What makes you think that creativity can be measured ultimately only within the "set of all things that can be achieved"? That seems like you're making it awfully easy on yourself.

Creativity is an an anthropoligical trait, it only exists in regards the environments that humans find themselves in, which are 1. incredibly diverse and 2. ever-changing AND 3. interact with each other and themselves in myriad ways.

Nah the 51st would be the emulation program itself. Robots are dumb and can never produce art if they themselves were produced, they will be the art.

>creativity is innovation within a set
>there is innovation within a set
>therefore creativity is not real

U fucking wot

>animals cant be creative

given enough time robots will surpass us, get used to the idea

shut up fuccboi

>given enough time robots will surpass us, get used to the idea

Yes sure but your way of going about that point is even worse than what robots are capable of now

could you stop using the term robot, you sound like you came straight from the '60

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no you can't tell me what to do

Sure, they can, you got me there. Point still stands. Creativity chiefly exists in relation to environments and conventions, not abstract sets of "all achievable things".

You'll be dead before that happens

wanna get into neural networks and actually find out?
youtube.com/watch?v=SacogDL_4JU

Music is a craft not an art

that is absolute trash lmao
surely only brogrammers could assume that this has anything to do with actual baroque music

art is just science with less information available

Science is just art with less information available

ayy

The conscious reader creates the meaning, a robot could create a simple sentence that we abstract.

a machine can be creative
but it can only be creative to the extent that its human programmers tell it to.

Humans have flashes of insight, psychosis, divine rapture, and flashes of insight

a computer can't just turn itself on and have some "eureka!" moment
a mchine cannot have epiphinay
a machine cannot have catharsis

a machine can be creative
but it wont tell you that some of its works are "divine mysteries" where the artists channeled spirits or gods.
And to be fair there's a lot of work of creativity that claim just that.

a human can look at rules and break them
a machine will forever be bound by them since it is embedded in their code.

>we can only find out the truth of things when we test them in ahistoric, sterile environments

you're american, right?

Then the reader is the creative

nice buzzwords

but wait a second
a child, how does it learn language?
it soaks information from its environment
it reads books
maybe one day it starts writing, first by copying, then emulating, later the database it draws from is so huge, influence is not clear anymore (you'd say somebody has found his voice/style)

thats exactly how an algorithm would work too, difference is, it can do it a lot faster, its database can contain literally every written word conceived (or atleast digitized) and it doesnt die.

computing errors are the equivalent of mental illness btw

and once that child becomes a fully realized/actualized adult
it learns synthesis, and playing with ideas
more importantly it invents its own instructions
so can make up its own rules

a machine will always have the mind of a child
its circuitry is always the same

>logic
>develop
>Does this even happen at this point?

Dude, you are aware of the history of logic, and how it's not at all a single set in stone thing that allows you to firmly reason about everything, right? Logic has seen major developments relatively recently.

there is no original work, its just remixed
the only difference, and that might be an issue, is that real people incorporate not only the literature they've read about or conversations they listened to but also all the other human experience bogus like subjective love etc.

>its circuitry is always the same
thats not how NN work
you'd be surprised how creative those machines are, they use techniques/strategies/come to conclusions that humans never came up with and that might seem utterly counter-intuitive

for a person placing so much emphasis on the primacy of silicon, and logic
>Infinite monkey theorem, being actually plausable
>Borges proving your point
holy shit
download your consciousness to net

>the body can only be sensed

Then the robot is the artist

Agreed. Literature would be replaced pretty soon

digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/japanese-ai-writes-novel-passes-first-round-nationanl-literary-prize/

Checkmate humanishits

More for you to chew on

rpiai.wordpress.com/2015/01/24/turing-test-passed-using-computer-generated-poetry/

The reason why creativity exists and humans still perform it is because it has monetary value and it's an actual industry, the day being creative doesn't pay off is the day the hobby will lose its purpose

hehe
those cavemen must have made a fortune with their graffiti

And when we ask the ai what it ment by writing that poem or any other poem for that matter?

I doubt the legitimicy of this due toq cultural stereotypes
Mainly the strange desire for the japanese to champion their development of robots.

They weren't being creative, they were passing down information to warn future generations about the dangers of some animals and even explaining how to hunt, if you consider those paintings creative then you might as well consider the STOP signs in the streets as pure art

hehe

If cave paintings were meant to be informative, why were they not put in accessible, lived in spaces? They were most likely linked to hunting rites/mystic ceremonies, as the other stuff archaeologists found in the vicinity.

Because the ones that were put in accessible, lived-in spaces were destroyed by the weather.
>If your book on road safety is supposed to be informative WHY DONT YOU LEAVE IT IN THE ROAD!?

what kind of information did they pass down with pic related?

Again, going back to my original post about humans being creative for monetary purposes,
That was most likely sold or someone was paid to make it in order to create the atmosphere of an abundant home/store/church, either way it's a way of making a living

>most likely

what

skipped most classes in favour of talking out your ass 101

That poem is literary meaningless.

Funny that you mention kids only soaking in info. When I was a baby I spontaneously named several things with new names, even though I knew how they "should" be called. I created something out of nothing, didn't imitate. A machine doesn't do that.

"I don't know what I'm talking about yet name-drop cool concepts": the post

>Penis goes here son

Those sure are some SOLID metaphysical claims

*sprinkles epistemological doubt*

SUCKER!

>How can creativity even be real?
I'm gonna pull out the word "real":

>How can you believe people actually have creativity?
>The amount of things that can be achieved are within a set, and creativity can only be in that framework.
Well yeah, that's what creativity ultimately is when you boil it all down. The problem isn't so much that people can't reach the standard but that you've moved the bar a lot higher than it actually is. It isn't some poof out of thin air thing; it's the exploitation of your own problem solving techniques. You have something you want to convey, and you figure out a way to get it across. Every idea man conceives is conceived as some kind of solution to some kind of demand. Go try and write. All the time authors will have deeper meaning and whatnot in their works, but this isn't because they're skillful or anything; it's because they know it's actually a lot easier to write that way than to just bullshit.

>uses words like sophistry
>"dude like logic doesn't develop"
>"logic is that thing where you act like spock, right?"
>"didn't aristotle basically finish that?"
never change, Veeky Forums

All that corroding weather affecting human habitation inside caves. Absolute moron.

Reading ritualistic objects through capitalist concepts like the wage relation demonstrates you have no understanding whatsoever of how ancient societies worked.

you clearly don't jack shit about set theory (or mathematics, for that matter), i strongly advise you to avoid using math terminology to paint your woke insights as more rigorous than they actually are

Why is it that whenever someone mentions the concept of selling and buying or anything to do with work you morons always go

> muh capitalist concepts hurr durrr

Can you not?