this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2025
252 points (97.0% liked)
movies
2545 readers
277 users here now
Matrix room: https://matrix.to/#/#fediversefilms:matrix.org
Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.
A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome
- Discussion threads to discuss about a specific movie or show
- Weekly threads: what have you been watching lately?
- Trailers
- Posters
- Retrospectives
- Should I watch?
Related communities:
Show communities:
Discussion communities:
RULES
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.
2024 discussion threads
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
With historian work, I think it's possible to say this idea appeared at about this point in time and space, even if it was refined by many previous minds. For example, you can tell about when an engineering invention or an art style appeared. Of course you will always have a specialists debate about who was the actual pioneer (often influenced by patriotism), but I guess we can at least have a consensus of when it starts to actually impact the society.
Also, maybe we can have an algorithm to determine if a generated result was part of the learning corpus or not.
But the idea is never original. The wheel likely wasn't invented randomly, it started as a rock that rolled down a hill. Fire likely wasn't started by a caveman with sticks, it was a natural fire that was copied. Expressionism wasn't a new style of art, it was an evolution that was influenced by previous generations. Nothing is purely original. The genesis of everything is in the existence of something else. When we talk about originality, we mean that these things haven't been put together this exact way before, and thus, it is new.
I don't disagree with your definition, but I'm not sure what it changes in the point of current LLMs lacking human creativity. Do you think there isn't anything more than a probabilistic regurgitation in human creativity so LLM already overcome human creativity, and it's just a matter of consideration?
I agree that humans are just flesh computers, but I don't know whether we can say LLMs have overcome human creativity because I think the definition is open to interpretation.
Is the intentionality capable only with metacognition a requirement for something to be art? If no, then we and AI and spiders making webs are all doing the same "creativity" regardless of our abilities to consider ourselves and our actions.
If yes, then is the AI (or the spider) capable of metacognition? I know of no means to answer that except that ChatGPT can be observed engaging in what appears to be metacognition. And that leaves me with the additional question: What is the difference between pretending to think something and actually thinking it?
In terms of specifically "overcoming" creativity, I don't think that kind of value judgement has any real meaning. How do you determine whether artist A or B is more creative? Is it more errors in reproduction leading to more original compositions?
As I suggested above, I would say creating a coherent idea or link between ideas that was not learned. I guess it could be possible to create an algorithm to estimate if the link was not already present in the learning corpus of an ML model.
I'm not sure how humans go about creating ideas, and therefore cannot be sure that the resulting ideas aren't a combination of learned things. There have been people in history who did things like guess that everything is made up of tiny particles long before we could ever test the idea, but probably they got the idea from observing various forms of matter, right? Like seeing how rocks can crumble into sand and grain can be ground to flour. I don't think they would have been able to come up with the idea in a vacuum. I think anything we're capable of creating must be based on things which we've already learned about, but I don't know that I can prove that.