zlacker

>>dredmo+(OP)
I think what these generative models reveal is that the vast majority of art is just interpolation.

>>Wander+Dh
Was there ever any doubt about that? There are literally entire graduate studies on it.

However, art isn't solely interpolation. The critical part is that art styles shift around due to innovations or new viewpoints, often caused by societal development. AI might be able to make a new Mondriaan when trained on pre-existing Mondriaans but it won't suddenly generate a Mondriaan out of a Van Gogh training set - and yet that's still roughly what happened historically.

>>crote+Zk
Lots of people in these comments trying to reduce art in a way that is pretty hilarious. You hit the nail on the head. Art is only interpolation if you....remove the human that created it, in which case you would not call the image art. AI "art" is computational output, to imply otherwise is to mistakenly imply a family resemblance to human (and uniquely human I would argue) creation.

>>beezle+rq
The human brain is just a model with weights and a lifelong training step. Seems like a distinction without a difference - even more so as ML models advance further.

>>dymk+6t
The human experience is an embodied one, it is not just information processing

>>xikrib+d62
Do we know for a fact that a sufficiently stateful and complex ML model won't experience subjective consciousness?