I don’t necessarily disagree with you - I think it might be a while before an AI can just make a whole movie. With that said, the idea to de-age old actors isn’t creative, but the process of de-aging them before the advent of AI would have been done by an artist and called creative work (although actually having a human artist do it was not feasible in practice).
There’s a tendency to consider something uncreative because it is done by AI and according to that logic AI cannot possibly be creative, but I try to judge AI creations by the same standards I would have used if they were human creations before AI existed.
but the process of de-aging them before the advent of AI would have been done by an artist and called creative work
There’s a tendency to consider something uncreative because it is done by AI and according to that logic AI cannot possibly be creative, but I try to judge AI creations by the same standards I would have used if they were human creations before AI existed.
by the same token you can’t consider something creative just because it is done by an artist. To me de-aging leans much closer to “menial labor” than actual creativity. It clearly requires skill, but very little imagination.
I was going to say something about “uncreative” being in the eye of the beholder, but actually I agree with you. De-aging Tom Hanks isn’t a case of creating art under constraints (which can bring out more creativity in humans). There’s a “correct” way to de-age him: the way he actually looked when he was younger. Even without that as a guide, the range of acceptable de-aged appearances is quite narrow. Too narrow to contain the space needed for creativity.
I think even some present-day AIs display creativity in a meaningful way even though they are still far from matching the full range of human creative abilities, but de-aging Tom Hanks, although amazing in its own way, is not an example of creativity.
I don’t think we know that AI will be good at creative work yet. De-aging old actors isn’t exactly “creative”.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you - I think it might be a while before an AI can just make a whole movie. With that said, the idea to de-age old actors isn’t creative, but the process of de-aging them before the advent of AI would have been done by an artist and called creative work (although actually having a human artist do it was not feasible in practice).
There’s a tendency to consider something uncreative because it is done by AI and according to that logic AI cannot possibly be creative, but I try to judge AI creations by the same standards I would have used if they were human creations before AI existed.
by the same token you can’t consider something creative just because it is done by an artist. To me de-aging leans much closer to “menial labor” than actual creativity. It clearly requires skill, but very little imagination.
I was going to say something about “uncreative” being in the eye of the beholder, but actually I agree with you. De-aging Tom Hanks isn’t a case of creating art under constraints (which can bring out more creativity in humans). There’s a “correct” way to de-age him: the way he actually looked when he was younger. Even without that as a guide, the range of acceptable de-aged appearances is quite narrow. Too narrow to contain the space needed for creativity.
I think even some present-day AIs display creativity in a meaningful way even though they are still far from matching the full range of human creative abilities, but de-aging Tom Hanks, although amazing in its own way, is not an example of creativity.