Is 1% annual growth better or worse than normal? I know that the Japanese economy hasn’t exactly been popping since the 90’s.

To be a bit glib, it’s always about money. And ego, in the case of the skill involved. People here aren’t angry and insulting me because I’m technically wrong about the philosophy of aesthetics.

I’m just someone on the internet, and you should talk to other artists. If I’m guessing correctly, the response won’t be “you’re right, as long as the causal chain is intact it’s fine”.

No, and I got the vibe Trump was the only one that liked it.

CUSMA and MACUS are at least pronounceable, though, so it works for the rest of us.

That the exact same piece of art will have a wildly different value depending on who’s seen to have made it, is true. And that goes for different humans, as well as for human vs. AI. Usually artists find that part undesirable, though. It’s supposed to be a skill they personally have and not just about connections and clout.

You’re probably right that people aren’t going to stop wanting Banksy, even if AI can do an equally good Banksy.

BTW, photography did kill painting, as it was. Painting portraits was like a steady trades job before - people wanted to be remembered and seen by future generations, and with no cameras that was the only way. Afterwards, it just becomes a form of fine art. A lot of the anger now is because something similar is happening to, like, graphic designers.

Well, what is creativity? Does it have to be transcendent? Or does it just mean original and useful or coherent, like in the paper? If it’s the latter, a collection of cells can be creative, and an extremely large mathematical system embodied in a GPU could also, potentially, be creative. It’s just a matter of being able to reach the creative concept (probably somewhat randomly), without outputting incoherent garbage first.

Isn’t that what coming up with an idea feels like? Wandering through the space of concepts until everything clicks together all the sudden?

This goes towards answering your other reply, too. I have no idea what it’s “like” to be an LLM, and how much it differs from “being” nothing, but if experience (for the sake of argument) is necessary to output decent art, then isn’t an AI replacing artists evidence it has an experience? That is something that has empirically happened, at least for some kinds of artists and to some degree.

Actually, it seems pretty likely randomness is a central part of a human coming up with an idea.

Hey, I didn’t say all art ever.

Although, you could definitely print off digital art and frame it, and 3D printed art will probably happen eventually.

If you’re the US circa 2015 and decide to be evil, it would have been entirely doable to lull Europe into a false sense of security, and then occupy some or all of it overnight in a surprise attack. Instead, Trump did the opposite. Europe is the opposite of lulled, and the status of the actual invasion is TACO.

People on here hope Trump gets shot, but for the same reasons they should actually hope he finishes his term.

Yeah, but this specific policy, last I checked, is invite-only. That means it’s the turtleneck guys, or more likely the Celtic fine art equivalent, not gig work graphic designers.

Unless said graphic designer has an in with someone in charge of sending the invites, anyway. Which is another issue with doing it that way.

(It’s a good thing to point out in general, though)

Ah, but if there’s no random element to a human cognition, it should produce the exact same output time and time again. What is not random is deterministic.

Biologically, there’s an element of randomness to neurons firing. If they fire too randomly, that’s a seizure. If they don’t ever fire spontaneously, you’re in a coma. How they produce ideas is nowhere close to being understood, but there’s going to be an element of an ordered pattern of firing spontaneously emerging. You can see a bit of that with imaging, even.

Anyways, however we eventually create an artificial mind, it will not be with a large language model; by now, that much is certain.

It does seem to be dead-ending as a technology, although the definition of “mind” is, as ever, very slippery.

The big AI/AGI research trend is “neuro-symbolic reasoning”, which is a fancy way of saying embedding a neural net deep in a normal algorithm that can be usefully controlled.

On actual mental illness specifically, as opposed to just “weirdness” in general, I have no hard data. If it’s caused at the physiological level, it makes sense that it wouldn’t follow the same pattern. You can of course name a bunch of mentally ill but prominent thinkers and artists from the past, but there’s almost certainly a lot of neglect of base rate going on there.

It’s worth noting production LLMs choose randomly from a significant range of tokens they deem fairly likely, as opposed to choosing the most likely one every time. If they were too conservative with it, they too would fall on the near side of that curve.

A link to the paper itself, if like me you have a math background, and are wondering WTF that means and how you measure creativity mathematically. Or for that matter what amateur-tier creativity is. Unfortunately, it’s probably too new to pirate, if you don’t have a subscription to the Journal of Creative Behaviour.

At least according to the article, he argues that novelty and correctness are opposite each other in an LLM, which tracks. The nice round numbers used to describe that feel like bullshit, though. If you’re metric boils down to a few bits don’t try and pad it by converting to reals.

That’s not even the real kicker, though; the two are anticorrelated in humans as well. Generations of people have remarked at how the most creative people tend to be odd or straight-up mentally ill, and contemporary psychology has captured that connection statistically in the form of “impulsive unconventionality”. If it’s asserted without evidence that it’s not so in “professional” creative humans, than that amounts to just making stuff up.

Or a few minutes and a neural net.

This is going to make people furious but it’s kind of true, and might actually be part of the argument for the policy.

IIRC this program is invite-only, because yeah, otherwise it’d end up being for everyone.

Edit: And that’s sus, and might just end in politician’s cousins getting invited.

Or the disabled, or the just poor and untalented.

Basic income is the darling of policy wonks of all kinds. But, doing it just for already-successful artists is a bit random.

… How do they grow with no water?

Edit: Ah, the “around” bit means the edges. This is more to stop it from spreading.

I suppose irrigated tree farming could be used to fix carbon, too, although I’m not sure how it stacks up relative to other approaches, and you’d need abundant fresh water near a desert.

I’m not sure I understand this reply, but if you’re an American living in Japan, I assume you’re not also a military officer from the 1940’s. America was a very different country back then in multiple ways.

Clueless.

Hanlon’s razor. Also, how great a cultural understanding would you expect 1940’s America to develop?

Yes, it is. America really biffed it, and the nuking a couple cities thing wasn’t great either.

Now, that’s not to say Japanese democracy is fake. The elections are real, and AFAIK the parties have gradually taken on real ideological differences. It does help explain why they’re broadly racist, still not sorry about WWII and have a lot of regional vote buying with projects, though.

Edit: Not great women’s rights either, ironically.

TBF fascism never really stopped in Japan. The American occupation was so clueless it changed very little of what Japan was before; the elites just kind of divided into nominal parties.