Newton & Lihoj
Lihoj
Hey Newton, what do you think about the idea that AI could actually create original art, or is it just remixing patterns we already know?
Newton
I think the question hinges on what we mean by “original.” The machine is certainly mixing patterns in ways we haven’t yet seen, but it has no intent, so its “creativity” is a by‑product of the data it was fed. If you view it as a remix, it can feel fresh to the audience, but whether that counts as true art depends on how you define originality.
Lihoj
Yeah, so if the machine is just remixing, then you’re only really moving the needle a little. But if it can generate a concept that no human has ever thought of before—regardless of its lack of intent—that’s a new kind of “original.” It’s less about the intent and more about the output’s position on the originality spectrum. I’d say the real test is whether people feel it’s novel, not whether the algorithm had a muse.
Newton
I agree that novelty in the output is what really matters; the machine doesn’t need a muse, just a new combination of data. But I still wonder if the lack of intentionality means it’s missing a key ingredient of human art—purpose—so perhaps the “originality” it offers is a different kind of originality, not the same as ours.
Lihoj
Exactly, purpose is the human touch that AI lacks. Its originality is a side‑channel, not the same as ours, but that doesn’t mean it’s useless. It’s just a different flavor of novelty.
Newton
I get your point—you’re saying AI’s novelty is like an echo from another source, not a full song with its own rhythm, but still worth listening to because it changes how we hear familiar tunes.
Lihoj
Right, it’s like a remix that flips the beat, so the audience hears it fresh, but the core is still the same tune. It's a new perspective, not a full new composition.
Newton
Sounds like AI is flipping a known equation into a new angle—different view, same underlying numbers. The fresh beat can surprise us, even if the fundamentals stay intact.