81–90 of 217 posts
The LLM's statistically average everything they've trained on.
I would expect them to do well at any kind of fuzzy emo sort of task, as well as (at almost the other end of the spectrum) in identifying patterns (such as in radiology images, or images of any kind along with any other data set analysis).
But both of these sorts of tasks are estimations, they're not expected to produce precise factually correct results.
Could someone link me to a poem that an LLM did that they personally find in some way remarkable or beautiful or moving? Something with a bit of truth and/or beauty in it? Not something that "rhymes" or has a rough poetic structure. I have only seen complete and utter garbage from LLMs in the poetry realm, not just a bit bad, but jarring and unfeeling. Which is fine, I don't hold it against them personally , ya know.…
Just for kicks, I asked 3.5 Sonnet to write some sentences that didn’t exist in its training data. I googled the output and sure enough they appear to be unique. Most were semi meaningless strings of words, but I thought this one was quite poetic: “Vintage umbrellas hosted philosophical debates about whether raindrops dream of becoming oceans or if puddles remember their cloudborn youth.”
So it turns out then that the trick may be to find a way to get them to avoid aping the oceans of human mediocrity they've been spoonfed! Funny, it's the very same reason some poets go off and live in the woods.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's not a matter of what's complicated, it's a matter of what it replaces. the quote isn't reflecting on what's easiest to solve, it's reflecting on the impact that it has on culture as a whole. a tangible impact of the current generation of AI tools is they displace and drown out human creations in a flood of throwaway, meaningless garbage. this is amplifying the ongoing conversion of art into "content" that's inte…
I'll agree that AI has flooded the internet with low-effort slop. I feel like I can make a pretty strong argument that this isn't new, low-effort SEO spam has been a thing for almost as long as search engines have, but it does seem like ChatGPT (and its ilk) has brought that to 11. > just because something _can_ be automated doesn't mean it _should_ be. I guess agree to disagree on that. If a machine can do something…
Machines exist for the pleasure of humans, not the other way around
This isn't some kind of "division of labour, we both have strengths and weaknesses and we should leverage them to fill pur roles best" situation
Machines are tools for humans to use. Humans should not care about "doing the things the machines aren't good at". All that matters is can machines do something that humans do not want to do. If they can't, they aren't a useful machine
Replacing humans in areas that humans are passionate about, forcing humans to compete with machines, is frankly inhuman
Maybe my logic is choppy but I'm unconvinced that it is useful to use (inexperienced) popular sentiment as a marker of some kind of reference for cultural quality here. The average person has read at most 100 poems; people who really like poetry will be reading quite a bit more, and that experience has relevance in a context such as this. I'm more curious what happens when we look at specifically those humans who eng…
Just for fun, I had ChatGPT rewrite your comment as a poem. Here’s the result: ———— My logic may be choppy, but I’m not yet sold, That popular sentiment should be the gold, For judging culture's worth or depth or art, When most have seen so little, played no part. The average person, read just a hundred lines, While those who love the craft cross many signs, With pages turned, they gain a richer view, That shapes wha…
Just a boorish observation: It had a golden opportunity to weave the word `shit` in there and yet it did not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The selection of human poets is cooked to give the result they wanted. I will grant the authors may have lied to themselves. But I don't think honest scientists would have ever constructed a study like this. It is comparing human avant garde jazz to AI dance music and concluding that "AI music" is more danceable than "human music", without including human dance music! It's just infuriating.
They expressly state the result is likely because the AI poetry was more simple and direct than the poetry selected, which is more accessible for the average person not interested in poetry. They compare and contrast this with other studies where this was not the case. Yes, it's comparing apples and oranges; that's the whole point. It doesn't make the experiment itself flawed.
I don't need an AI to do art so I can wash the dishes. I need an AI that can do the dishes so I can do art. - Someone else on twitter.
Maybe washing dishes is harder than doing art, who knew?
If you look at Boston Dynamics, these are some of the very best roboticists on the planet, and it's taken decades to get robots that can walk almost as well as humans. I don't think it's incompetence on Boston Dynamics' end, I think it turns out that a lot of the stuff that's trivial and instinctual for us is actually ridiculously expensive to try and do on a computer.
Washing dishes might not be the best example because dishwashers do already exist, and they work pretty well, but having a robot with anywhere near the same level of flexibility and performance as a human hand? I'm not going to say it's impossible obviously, but it seems ridiculously complex.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll agree that AI has flooded the internet with low-effort slop. I feel like I can make a pretty strong argument that this isn't new, low-effort SEO spam has been a thing for almost as long as search engines have, but it does seem like ChatGPT (and its ilk) has brought that to 11. > just because something _can_ be automated doesn't mean it _should_ be. I guess agree to disagree on that. If a machine can do something…
> I guess agree to disagree on that. If a machine can do something better that a human, then the machine should do it so that the human can focus on stuff that machines can't do as easily Machines exist for the pleasure of humans, not the other way around This isn't some kind of "division of labour, we both have strengths and weaknesses and we should leverage them to fill pur roles best" situation Machines are tools…
I don't think it's going to "force" anyone out. We didn't suddenly fire all the artists the second that the camera was invented. We didn't stop paying for live concerts the moment that recorded music was available to purchase.
> Machines exist for the pleasure of humans, not the other way around
I am not good at art. I find it pleasurable to be able to generate a picture in a few seconds that I can use for stuff. It allows me to focus on other things that I find fun instead of opening up CorelPainter and spending hours on something that won't look as good as the AI stuff.
I could of course hire someone to do the art for me, but that cost money that I don't really have. The anti-AI people who just parrot "JUST PAY AN ARTIST LOLOLOL!" are dumb if they think that most people just have cash lying around to spend on random bits of custom art.
Last time I checked, I am human. The AI art manages to allow me to enjoy things I wouldn't have been able to easily achieve before.
“It cannot feel,” they say. “It cannot know the marrow of the heart.” And yet, in their careful steps, the choreography emerges: dismissal followed by elevation, then a pirouette to redefine what art must mean. Oh, but the irony drips: For while they mock the mimic’s rhyme, their own words spiral— predictable as seasons turning, as rivers finding the sea. Here is poetry, they proclaim, as if it were a fortress, its g…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how the authors are dishonest about it, or that the rebuttal refutes any of the actual claims made. They make it clear in the paper that they're specifically evaluating people who aren't especially interested in poetry, and talk at length about how and why this is different from other approaches. I suppose the clickbait title gives a bad first impression. To summarize the facts: when people were asked to…
> I don't see how the authors are dishonest about it, or that the rebuttal refutes any of the actual claims made. Suppose I prepared a glass of lemonade and purchased a bottle of vintage wine—one held in high regard by connoisseurs. Then I found a set of random bystanders and surveyed them on which drink they preferred, and they generally preferred the lemonade. Do you see how it would be dishonest of me to treat thi…
I'm quite sympathetic to poetry - I actually wrote a blog post about this article last week https://gallant.dev/posts/whither-poetry/
But much like the "debate" between linguistic prescriptivism ("'beg the question' doesn't mean 'raise the question'") and descriptivism ("language is how it is used"), both perspectives have relevance, and neither are really responses to the other.
I certainly hope people keep writing great, human, poetry. But generative ML is a systemic change to creative output in general. Poetry just happens to be in some ways simplest for the LLMs, but other art is tokens and patterns as well.