Unpopular opinion: AI art generators aren't actually creative at all

I read a study from MIT last week that said these models can't make anything truly new, they just remix what's already out there with a 90% similarity rate. Am I missing something or is calling this 'innovation' just a marketing trick?

2 comments

2 Comments

robin4893d ago

Yeah I'm totally with you on that one. Calling it "innovation" feels like a stretch when the whole system is just mashing up existing art and spitting out the closest match it can find. It's more like a really advanced copy machine than a creator, and I don't get why some people act like that's the same thing as human imagination.

olivers282d ago

Fair enough, but I gotta say I see it a little different. The thing with human imagination is, we don't create stuff out of thin air either. Every painting or song I've ever made is just a remix of things I've seen and heard my whole life, mashed up with my own twist. AI does the same thing, just way faster and with a bigger library to pull from. Calling it a copy machine feels like downplaying how much that process actually mirrors what we do when we "create." The real difference is we have a lifetime of context and emotion behind our choices, not just a database. So yeah, it's not the same as human imagination, but it's closer to it than I think people give it credit for.