Then, by definition, it's not new and thus not creativity.
Now all you have to do is show how
any goal is not merely a subjective matter (which relegates creativity not to the mechanics at work but to a matter of perception). Until you can, it is your own argument that results in nothing being creative.
You can have the exact same idea be self-originated or preexisting. So there can be no appeal to complexity for the exact same idea.
Yes, there can: if your argument is that something complex (humans) can create, but never explain how that happens, then you are simply appealing to that complexity. Period. Comparing a created thing to a pre-existing thing is thus utterly irrelevant, so put that strawman away.
It's who originates the idea, as creativity can only originate from a creator, by definition.
Agreed, and now all you have to do is stop appealing to complexity in your arguments and show what it takes to be a creator.
There no need to appeal to complexity when you have yet to demonstrate that the AI creates anything other than what its programmers tell it to.
There is obviously a need because you're doing it so often. I presume the need arises from your arguments not concluding as you wish them to until you make such an appeal. But I would agree that you should stop the appeals to complexity and investigate the actual processes going on. If all you intend in that regard is to call absurd any comparison between a limited ruleset and a more complex one, for example, then you're clearly not interested, and are simply happy with your appeal to complexity.
Again, if you don't believe creativity exists, you are simply explaining it away, which also defeats your own argument that an AI can be creative.
You still don't get it, do you: it is
your arguments, as shown, that lead to the conclusion that nothing is creative. And all you do to insert creativity in your conclusion is appeal to complexity along the way. And lo and behold it magically appears in your conclusion. I'm simply taking your own arguments, your explanations, and showing you where they lead.
Iteration is a method of learning, even in humans, so your gripe is with your own straw man.
No, it's with your category fallacy, confusing "general" in matters of scope and process. You want to claim you were talking about scope, yet even here agree that iteration is a method (i.e. process).
Ah, the common refrain of the crackpot. "Prove me wrong." You're the one making the claim, so the onus is yours. The null hypothesis is that the rules of games don't apply to the whole universe and the AI isn't doing anything special.
No, the null hypothesis is that there is
no difference between certain characteristics of a population. So if you make an argument based on behaviour within a ruleset, the null hypothesis is that anything else in a ruleset will behave the in a same way with respect to that ruleset. E.g. if one system follows the ruleset it is governed by, another system will follow the ruleset that
it is governed by. If you want to reject the null hypothesis you need to make a case for it, a case that is conspicuous by its ongoing absence. But your continued evasion is noted, as is your continued appeal to complexity.
"Sure. And one could equally say that everything... and I do mean everything ... a human does already exists within the potential of the universe, the only difference in that we set out own goals (or at least most of us do)." #227
As already clarified, that was in comparing us to AI, not in any absolute sense.
You really don't understand how something like the first airplane or a work of art is new?
I'm not doing your homework for you. You've claimed they're new, so support the claim. Your arguments to-date would suggest that they are not new, that they are just innovation on existing ideas, which you have consigned to the camp of "not creative". So show how they are new, or is all you have now the common refrain of the crackpot: "Prove me wrong!" Show that they are new. Don't just assert it. Examine how they arose with your own argument in mind. Show how, following your argument, they should be classified as new, given what you have rejected thus far and why. Unless you can do that you simply have nothing. And remember, these are
your arguments being interrogated here.
Wait. You seriously don't see any difference between a supplied goal and a self-originated one?
I'm waiting for you to provide the difference beyond an appeal to complexity. Can you do that? Or are you just going to continue to evade?
Again, that's you arguing that creativity does not exist, in humans or AI.
No, it's not. It's the conclusion of
your arguments once you strip out the appeals to complexity. If you can't or won't show why things don't apply to one system but do apply to a more complex one, you are appealing to complexity. I get that you want your arguments to show one can be creative and the other not, but your arguments sans your appeal to complexity simply don't do that.
It's your claim. This "prove me wrong", crackpot bullshit ain't gonna fly.
Your continued evasion continues to be noticed.
Is that all you now have left: an unwillingness to address why your arguments lead to the conclusion they don't want to? It's sad. It really is.
If you assert AI can be creative, it's on you to show how it occurs.
We can get on to
my arguments in this regard once we have finished with yours. And who knows, by examining yours further you may yet begin o understand mine. But for now we're examining what
you have to say, and have said, about the matter.
If that means you first have to define how it happens in humans, that's also on you.
I'm sure we'll get on to that in due course.
Quit projecting your own obvious evasion on others.
No projection necessary, I'm afraid: you are demonstrably evading the issues I have raised.
If you have an ounce of intellectual honesty, you know the onus for your own claim is on you. Own it.
When I claim something the onus will be on me, and I will own it. But at the moment we're investigating
your argument, so the onus is on you to support
your claims, and to address the issues highlighted in
your arguments. If
you have any intellectual honesty you would do that.
You cannot honestly purport to be questioning if something involves creativity when you explicitly presume creativity, e.g. "Michaelangelo, go and decorate the Sistine Chapel". That's literally begging the question.
You haven't shown his work to be an act of creativity, you have simply asserted it. In fact
you are begging the question by stating that the example begs the question. I did no such thing with the example. So please don't project your assumptions on me.
Quit trying to weasel out of what you've already said.
... says the one who is just about to try and weasel out of their obvious misunderstanding of what a simulation is.
You claimed: "Everything anyone will ever do could be simulated by brute force"#227 You cannot "model" "everything anyone will ever do" without replicating "everything anyone will ever do".
I know what I said, but you claimed that I was equivocating "modeled" with "simulated"... when, as explained, simulation is simply the running of a model etc. The fact that to simulate everything requires a fairly accurate model is irrelevant to your obvious misunderstanding of the word. And what I said was not a strawman, it is simply something you clearly don't want to address.
Not my arguments, your straw men. Again, your claim, your onus. Quit being a lazy crackpot.
Yes, your arguments, as shown already. Dismissing them as strawmen is simply dishonesty on your part.
At this point, I can only assume you actually don't understand how anything can be new.
I'm waiting for you to tell me how something can be new. At the moment you are simply assuming it, and assuming that everyone agrees with you. You claim something can be new, despite all your arguments, as shown, suggesting the opposite. You don't like that conclusion so you simply dismiss it without addressing how your arguments lead there.
Until you can answer that yourself, your claim that AI can be creative is vacuous.
We're not discussing my claims yet, but
yours. You claim things can be creative, you have given arguments that suggest they can't, and you haven't once shown how anything can be new. If you can, perhaps we can examine where in your argument you're making the mistake.
It's a false dilemma that creativity either cannot be based upon any previous knowledge or experience or it doesn't exist. If that's what you presumed, that's on you.
Then for fuck's sake explain what
you think is entailed in something being new, how it arises etc. Or are you simply going to continue your ridiculous dishonesty while crying foul at every turn?
Then that's just an argument for there being no real creativity, again, defeating your claim about AI.
No, once again, I am following
your arguments here. All I am doing is not making any unwarranted assumptions. It is still for you, should you ever deign to be honest in this thread, to explain how things can be new, how things can be creative, given your arguments thus far.
