But all of human creation is derivative.
But all of human creation is derivative.
Right, the trick will be quantifying what is ‘likely to be a hit’, which if we’re honest, has already been done.
Also, neural networks and other evolutionary algorithms can inject random perturbations/mutations to the system which, operate a bit like uninformed creativity (something like banging on a piano and hearing something interesting that’s worth pursuing). So, while not ‘inspired’ or ‘soulful’ as we would generally think of it, these algorithms are capable of being creative In some sense. But it would need to be recognized as ‘good’ by someone or something…and back to your point.
To me it was helpful in trying to understand the perspective from which a group derive their actions. Much like you said. Usually a good first step in dealing with interpersonal conflict is to make an attempt to understand the other perspective. The end does seem to wander a bit, but I think there’s some truth in the general premise that a large group of people feel left behind (in various ways for various reasons).
David Brooks wrote a good article in the New York Times today that tries to help shift perspectives a bit to understand this. I’d highly recommend reading it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/opinion/trump-meritocracy-educated.html
I think this is an important distinction. AI can be creative in that it can develop something new and unique, but it will have arrived at it by chance - through random inputs to the algorithm designed to minic evolutionary mutations that end up beneficial.
I agree that (at least for now) it would not be able to develop something out of inspiration or emotion. But that’s because we don’t understand enough about how emotion and inspiration are developed to create an algorithm that cultivates it.