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.

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.

Thanks, this makes sense. So, the last thing I’m wondering about is the redundancy/exclusivity of communities. For example, could there be a community called ‘gardening’ on the “Works” instance and also an independent community by the same name on “World” (before anyone is mutuallt subscribed)? Seems like it could… And if so, what happens when someone cross subscribes to ‘gardening’.

Specifically, (from a user experience standpoint) do these redundant communities coelesce into one? Because some of the benefit of these communities (particularly the more niche) is pulling together the experts into one community.

Forgive what is probably a silly naive question…

Can someone point me to an explanation of the federated architecture of lemmy? I haven’t found one yet that has helped me build a good mental model. I either get a step-by-step startup guide, or discussions on the merrits/demerits of a distributed system.

I think I’ve pieced together that it’s basically independent “instances” of the machine each with their own communities within. Sort of like if there were multiple instances of reddit, each with its own r/aww or whatever. I don’t yet understand, however how these interact/relate/ovelap/collaborate…which I think is the basis for this thread.

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

At least I still have Jacques.

Man, I hadn’t seen this. I’ll have to dig a little deeper, but from a quick scan doesn’t look awesome.

I’ve been a big fan for many many years. Doesn’t change what he did for food television. And helped do (along with other people/companies of the same era) to food science. But, damn, can’t a hero just stay a hero?

At least I still have Jacques.

I think that was a long time and another marriage ago.

I don’t get that sense with him now, but could see that having been the case 20 or 30 years ago.