this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2026
95 points (99.0% liked)
Games
21342 readers
141 users here now
Tabletop, DnD, board games, and minecraft. Also Animal Crossing.
Rules
- No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, or transphobia. Don't care if it's ironic don't post comments or content like that here.
- Mark spoilers
- No bad mouthing sonic games here
- No gamers allowed
- No squabbling or petty arguments here. Remember to disengage and respect others choice to do so when an argument gets too much
- Anti-Edelgard von Hresvelg trolling will result in an immediate ban from c/games and submitted to the site administrators for review.
- Can't read Colon Syntax Emoji? :skill-issue:
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Humans need to have input to reflect through their brain processing to produce art work. You have just insinuated that humans have an inate ability to produce art with zero input data to work with. A completely inane metaphysical assertion.
Artists consume vast libraries of art in order to become good artists. Nobody is a savant with no access to input data.
I never said they would create good art (and what counts as good art is an entirely different conversation) just that they would come with the innate ability to create. A toddler doesn't need to tour the Louvre to make finger paintings, the first cave paintings had no precursor but they were still created by someone.
Yes obviously artists study art to improve their skills, no shit, but people (and some more intelligent animals let's face it) make art without prior input/examples all the time. My point still stands: ai can only ape what already exists while humans are not constrained by the same shackles
Humans are constrained to the same shackles but we use our sense organs to obtain input information. We do need prior examples, we do not have a soul memory of how to create. Instantly a human is exposed to concept of themselves and the outside world, their body shape and form, the taste of their own saliva, the smell of the room. We are not magic, we use that input data to produce a reflection of some aspect of reality.
Humans can create artistic depictions of things that they have never seen, images that are totally unique and without precedent.
Generative AI, at this moment, can't. They can only remix images that are in the training data, nothing truly new can ever be created. It's always derivative. That isn't to say that there's anything special about humans beyond our ability to generate information that has no precedent, but this isn't really that special. Nature creates things without precedent all the time, and humans are part of nature. We simply haven't made generative AI that can mimic nature's ability to create things that don't already exist.
But those things do have a precedent. We can't create things that don't have some basis in the reality we have processed with our sense organs. When we create a fictional character, they might be unlike any individual human we have met, but their traits are a composite of many different human experiences and traits that we have witnessed either externally to ourselves or internally.
I can tell you for certain that LLMs can also create fictional characters in the same way given a small amount of direction. They are not merely remix machines and to say they are betrays a deep misunderstanding of how the technology even functions.
Nature can create things that never existed before. What makes you think we, as natural beings, can't?
That isn't to say generative AI can never mimic nature's ability to generate totally new things, but this current technology doesn't even try. It only remixes the data in the training set, it never makes anything truly new.
Nature can't technically create, it can only re-arrange to make higher order creations out of smaller building blocks.
I don't think we're coming at things from the same lens at all and I don't think it's worth continuing this discussion.
It's really unfair to disengage with a parting shot. Don't do that shit.
Not saying you're wrong at all, but I find it funny that this is sooo close to one of Descartes proofs of God's existence in Meditations, that humans were able to conceive of "infinity" despite not being able to experience it directly.
I think Descartes was silly and wrong so I'm not really going anywhere with this, just read your post and found myself back in that PHIL101 classroom.