>>14370311Computer theory explicitly states that any object in any specific arrangement can be a computer. Circuit-based computers just use electrical states in semiconductors to conduct computation, and all AI is based in this process.
Implicitly we recognize that, for example, a sufficiently complex meteor shower that happens to function as a physical computer of AI art generation in some format, this cannot possess "creativity". It is a meteor shower. Nevertheless, computer theory requires that this meteor shower is a computer equivalent to an electricity-based computer that conducts AI art generation.
The reality is that you're simply stupid. Don't be angry, you're stupid in the way that many people are stupid. They think an electricity-based computer is magical and special, because they're used to electricity-based computers that are able to do strange and mysterious things, and they don't really understand how computers are able to do this on a fundamental level. They also don't understand consciousness, and when they compare a computer chatbot, which runs on electricity to generate conversations with the user, and a person, who uses electro-chemical neural impulses to perform conversation via speech, they assume this means that the two are basically similar, and that therefore maybe computers are capable of consciousness.
Computers are not capable of consciousness. Even if they were, we understand consciousness so poorly that we cannot really posit exactly when a computer becomes conscious. There is no epistemological way to determine whether, if computers can be conscious, they become conscious at the level of complexity of a Tetris game or at the level of complexity of a global super-computer. It's essentially meaningless. And since creativity derives from consciousness, determining with a computer is creative is also meaningless.
