Why not? Why would the spirit or source be unwilling to connect to an AI? This kind of thinking assumes that the spirit or source discriminates based on the material of the vehicle.

I think you’re right for generalised models today that have been trained on a wide amount of data. There will likely be some models that will be better at specific creative processes, when the costs of training come down drastically. And generalised models will likely interact with more specific ones.

But in general you are correct. We will wish to oversee and cherry-pick the outputs generated from AI.

Under the hood it is doing pattern recognition, examining ways in which we have solved problems previously using existing knowledge and language that they have been trained on or have extrapolated. This is its rule set, so it is naturally handcuffed for creativity. Having said that, if you’ve already used it to generate designs, code or anything reasonably complex… it is quite astounding the results you can get. Results that you or I as being “more creative” or inspired could only hope to achieve.

At the end of the day, it will be us as humans that wrongly use this tool to try and exert control. Not the AI itself. Us as humans still think outside the box, can likely generate the most effective prompts or ask it to reflect and iterate on its output. We are holding the leash.

I have a view that our perception of AI may well depend on our very usage of it. If we don’t use it, we may see it as a source of control, oppression and friction. If we do use it, we may found ourselves as more creative and productive. That it is empowering us towards individual progress. Time will tell if that is correct. I know there are bitcoiners that disagree, but just remember that people thought electricity was going to kill them not too long ago…

People are worried about AI but I don't see AI can outsmart the the complex web of human emotions that often need adjustment. AI is monotonous. It doesn't have those fluctuations of feelings which humans are capable of.

I agree it’s going to be fascinating to see how AI will develop and work for us but I just can’t see how it can make an impact on human creativity. Art and music inspire us in so many different ways that I can’t ever imagine AI doing. I can’t see it breaking creative boundaries only conforming to our current artistic norms.

Consider the following premises:

If you believe both of these to be true, as I do, then one is forced to conclude that all forms of cognition can at least be replicated in software.

From there, it's rather trivial to assume that software can surpass any form of human cognition (including creativity). You can optimise the code, speed up the processing with better hardware, etc.

I hope you are right. We just need to remember what spirit and consciousness really is, a snowflake, original unique experience and circumstances that lead us to a particular moment in time. That, technically speaking, can be generated at random (well, there no such things as random but for the sake of this conversation let's assume it is random). AI can also think and calculate 1000 times faster than human and can remember pretty much friggin everything forever. With right programming it can assess the situation and calculate 800 variances of it. Ethics can be thought (read programmed) etc. We have learn a lot of things, AI can too and faster. My personal biggest worry is not about AI, it is at the end of the day a tool. Just like a hammer or a gun. It can be used to build a house or crash skulls. It's the bad people with bad intentions that worry me a little, and we have no shortage of those... sadly...

What do you mean with this phrase?

If you see two artworks, one made by a human and one made by an AI, where is the spirit and source in each one? how can you tell the difference?

What I can see is that an AI doesn't have intent.

So, in reality, in the example I discussed before, it was really two humans, but one used AI. An AI doesn't create an artwork out of the blue. It doesn't have intent like humans can have.

This feels true to me also. And I have had these very arguments with people who have a mechanistic mindset who believe that "spirit" is just an as yet undiscovered chemical compound or neuro-biological phenomena that science will ultimately explain, computers will ultimately achieve parity with, and that thinking machines will have the same access to all the creative source that humans have - and then somehow they will transcend humanity by means of the Singularity.

I am skeptical about this for reasons that I cannot completely articulate, but that I feel deeply to be true. Humans appear to receive divine inspiration at times. Masterpieces of art, vision, philosophy, math and other profound insights seem to simply arrive with no effort. But often after strenuous effort. In moments of pure relaxation. Perhaps there is a mechanistic explanation for this. I would prefer to believe we are connected to an eternal thread of sublime holiness straight back to the creator.

Pulling on this thread, I remind myself of Ariadne preparing the thread for Theseus to lead him out of the Minotaur's Labyrinth. Life is a maze with no way out leading to inevitable death. Salvation means holding on to the thread that connects you to the source.

AI is already much better than most humans at creative tasks such as poetry and painting. It's way too late for "AI will never be creative".

A.i. will be creative and probably do better than modern "professionals". The fact that every movie or song is simply a collection of other inputs a neural net (inside the brain) has patched together into something "new" it will be able to literally do the same and it already is.

Current AI you mention is narrow type. But there are AGI and ASI. Never say never. I think you are wrong and AI evolves faster that your organic brain can imagine. AGI and ASI are around the corner.

It's "creativeness" aside: it's an absolutely awesome tool for boosting one's productivity, and that's only going to increase as years go by.

I'm absolutely stoked for that.

AI indeed exhibits a form of creativity akin to humans, assimilating environmental inputs to generate new content, as evident in image creation. Much like humans who draw inspiration from their surroundings to produce artistic endeavors.

Furthermore, why couldn't the essence of 'spirit' permeate AI? Must a 'spirit' be confined to machines of flesh and blood? I don't know.

I am a very intuitive person. To me intuition is natural and being tapped into something greater. AI doesn't seem like it can have that.