91–100 of 230 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The photographers who took those stock photos also trained on stock photos.
The difference is that now only the owner of a machine profits where before lots of individuals profited. More power to the owners, I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope - a.i. is essentially just rearranging pixels because you can formally delineate (via mathematical expressions) how to arrive from input set to output image. To compare this in any respectable degree to human creativity is not reasonable.
How does human creativity work?
The creative generation part - adding some randomness to the process - is trivial with machines. Much easier than with humans adults, who often have to learn to allow more randomness and in their thinking/feeling, in order to make some creative work. But the selection functions are deeply social, which is something we're instinctively good at, and had little luck teaching the machines so far.
Well, with the possible exception of GPT-4, which may have learned just enough about what humans like, that it could do a passing job at discriminating art/innovation from noise. I say may - it feels possible, but we won't know until someone properly tests for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think my point flew over your head. The burden of proof is on you to provide the source that we can't simulate the whole universe, humans included. This is something that cannot be proved to be true, even if it was the truth, it is possible that you can only prove it to be false, and nobody managed to do it yet. That's why it's on you to prove it to be false. Especially since you claim that something cannot be comp…
I never said it can't. And you're mistaken unfortunately - it is extremely difficult to prove a negative, as most people trained in philosophy intimately understand. For instance, "prove God is NOT real". You might be new to analytical thinking, and I would recommend diving a bit deeper into "burden of proof" type arguments before proceeding further.
Proving that we can reliably simulate human brains requires showing that nowhere in any human brains does such signals ever emanate. We can get close if we one day have the capacity to run a simulated brain for long enough to show it appears to function like a human, but when the counter hypothesises a violation of known physics that may well be intermittent and extremely limited, we can't realistically absolutely prove its absence.
As such, the former is tractable if such signals can occur, the latter is not, and so I think my comparison of it elsewhere to a claim of Russell's proverbial orbiting teapot is reasonable - people will always be able to claim that there is some so far unobserved difference, and given it postulates highly localised violations of known physics and this seems like an absolutely extraordinary claim, the burden must be theirs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The burden of proof is on you to provide the source that human creativity can be computed mathematically. Note that the same can be said about the negation: show me a proof that it can't.
I never said it can't. And you're mistaken unfortunately - it is extremely difficult to prove a negative, as most people trained in philosophy intimately understand. For instance, "prove God is NOT real".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The photographers who took those stock photos also trained on stock photos.
The difference is that now only the owner of a machine profits where before lots of individuals profited. More power to the owners, I guess.
Hello post-industrial/ai/ml capitalism.
This development will do to designers, programmers, support what the industrial revolution did to cobblers and weavers ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The trajectory of ML appears to point towards massive transfer of wealth to capital owners and impoverishment of the working classes. We need to find a way to distribute the benefits of such developments.
Imo it's only right to have something that is made of public goods (i.e. everyone's data and human historic record) to become a public good in itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does human creativity work?
Slight jitter + strong and complex selection functions, like "is it useful?", "is it more useful than what came before?", "is it appreciated by the audience?", etc. The creative generation part - adding some randomness to the process - is trivial with machines. Much easier than with humans adults, who often have to learn to allow more randomness and in their thinking/feeling, in order to make some creative work. But…
I've tried giving GPT4 some axes to rank writing on, and feed it some paragraphs. It's not perfect at it, but it's a far better critic than writer.
E.g. a while back I had it write something "in the style of Douglas Adams" and then had it critique it in another chat, and it recognised the imitation and proceeded to quite harshly judge its own writing for being flat and lacking direction and purpose. It was quite entertaining (more so than its superficially amusing Douglas Adams imitation).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With something representable with math functions that nobody knows yet.
That is an incredibly strong assertion that evidence does not seem to support currently. So, you may take it on faith if you wish, however there is growing interest in the notion that creativity itself is that which is not systemetizable .
It'd take a truly extraordinary find that'd upend both physics and areas of logic for that assertion to be false.
Like it or not, it's here like CGI in movies bestsellers. I don't envy artists, most of them will have to rethink their plans and switch to graphics or web designers, or something similar. Not sure who will be next. Probably GPT will take over virtual bookshelves on Amazon. Mandatory "AI generated" mark may help a bit. I will not waste my time reading it. I think we should expect a flood of "masterpieces" in differen…
Dunno, 'brand name' writers of airport novels have been forever accused of having ghost-written their novels, I think AI will allow writers of lesser budgets to also get help in writing their novels. Or who knows, even the 'King'-s of the world will use AI to fill out their chapters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also education, where kids can ask questions and give the answers. Not sure how parents feel about putting kids in front of a machine that can fabricate lies. I mean a encyclopaedia getting information wrong is one thing - garbage in, garbage out - but one that actively invents lies is like added another layer of bad to things. Probably better for kids learn to search for information and evaluate information source…
> Not sure how parents feel about putting kids in front of a machine that can fabricate lies. You mean like a human teacher? Of course, I agree with your point, but worth remembering that teachers can and do (knowingly or unknowingly) give incorrect information to their students. I think one big difference with ChatGPT etc. is, as far as I've seen, it will pretty much always give a confident sounding answer (unless i…
This reminded me of one of my teachers who said that Cuba was a great place to live and the rest of Latin America should be more like them. She was essentially a communist who painted the old Soviet Union and communist countries in general as much better than the capitalist west.