4 ms·
That's jibberish though. Is the bar for good "AI" still that it frequently writes sentences that, in isolation, could pass as coherent writing but string a coup
by test_epsilon 5y ago
That's jibberish though. Is the bar for good "AI" still that it frequently writes sentences that, in isolation, could pass as coherent writing but string a couple together and it's a train wreck?
- staticassertion 5y agoYou serious? I could have turned that in as a highschool short story assignment.
- test_epsilon 5y agoExactly.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- quenix 5y agoIt's far from jibberish. This is impressive.
- taberiand 5y agoI find a lot of these computer generated text and art feel very much trying to remember a dream - there is a feeling of it making perfect sense until you try to explain it.
- hnbad 5y agoIt's cohesive at the micro level without expressing anything at the macro level. It's like train of thought writing except it eventually contradicts earlier details and doesn't necessarily elaborate on anything it builds up to. The parent comment is right that it is gibberish, but it's also wrong in that its comprehensible at the surface level. There's just no depth to it because it is just trying to replicate a form without function.
- test_epsilon 5y agoIt's jibberish and not impressive in the slightest. This is roughly the state of the art in "AI". It can't even write one single coherent short paragraph. Not even after having 800GB of coherent paragraphs to look at and countless trillions of computations to train with. Now, "AI" has its uses of course, and this jibberish generator probably has uses too. The generator itself is not impressive at all to me though. Someone finding a useful application for such a thing would be impressive, but not this text.