4 ms·
This depends on the definition of "automate" and "creative." GPT-3 proves that you can automate creative writing. In principle it's possible to have a system th
by diego 5y ago
This depends on the definition of "automate" and "creative." GPT-3 proves that you can automate creative writing. In principle it's possible to have a system that interacts with users and develops software based on feedback. You cannot take user feedback out of the loop, sure. Maybe one day the system will also be able to simulate the user's reactions to iterative prototypes, to the point of coming up with something directly useful. Of course the system can't predict the future, which is why iterations will continue as time passes and the world changes.
- version_five 5y ago> GPT-3 proves that you can automate creative writing. No
- robbedpeter 5y ago> No Yes
- AussieWog93 5y agoI mean, it definitely is creative in the sense that it turns a one sentence prompt into a full story. There is no reason to think that it couldn't write Hollywood-style generic movies in future.
- wrnr 5y agoNarrative skill is often overlooked even in people. 1) The kind died, then the queen died of a broken hard. 2) The king died, then the queen died. 3) The kind died, then the queen died of a broken arm. One is a story, two is not, three is written by AI.
- robbedpeter 5y agoI mean, at least spend the 60 seconds or less it takes to check spelling. You can tell all the above was written by a human.
- wrnr 5y agoyour welcome
- tialaramex 5y agoIn Imaginary Magnitude Lem provides the introduction (or perhaps foreword, I don't remember) to a work on Bitics, machine literature. IIRC typographical errors are where it begins. Now, of course Lem is writing fiction (even if the fiction purports to be a scholarly work about an imaginary topic) and there's no reason our world should proceed as Lem imagines, but equally there is no reason to rule it out either.
- peterfield 5y agoI laughed That said, like any other skill, there will be a day when AI actually surpasses humans at it. Moravec and Tegmark convinced me of it. (The prelude to Tegmark's fascinating LIFE 3.0 is online: https://www.marketingfirst.co.nz/storage/2018/06/prelude-life-3.0-tegmark.pdf https://www.marketingfirst.co.nz/storage/2018/06/prelude-lif...) PS: I laughed more from the xkcd link posted before by u/ignoranceprior https://xkcd.com/1263/ https://xkcd.com/1263/
- morpheos137 5y agoActually you have a point. Hollywood plots have been about as coherent as GPT output since CGI became a big thing. But seriously, no GPT is not going to be writing movies any time soon. Why? Because it does not have anywhere close to the coherence of human written plots. Why? Because GPT is not "AI." It is rather fancy statistical extrapolation.
- MathYouF 5y agoAnd artificial strength isn't muscle attached to ligaments, yet factory machines outperform humans. We should be defining intelligence by outputs rather than the methodology by which they achieve them, or else the only acceptable definition for intelligence will become "a human brain". If you choose the former, you can comfortably say airplanes don't fly, they just glide, if you want to define flight as flapping of wings. Yet airplane flight is more efficient than if we tried to achieve it the biological way. Similarly, it seems apparent we'll be able to solve many tasks that we attribute to "intelligence" using methods different than the biological ones. We shouldn't limit ourselves to comparing the methodology when deciding if it has achieved the goal, it is more productive, from what I've seen, to define by output, and to increase specificity there if the result is still unsatisfying.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- morpheos137 5y agoWhen people write text they use it to represent ideas and objects and relations between ideas and objects. When GPT writes text it fits a satistical model. It has no concept of meaning. Although the result may be superficially similar sometimes, under the hood the two processes are nothing alike. GPT does not think. Humans do. At least sometimes. Thinking is an internal process. It is not just determined by its output. When we roll dice we do not say the dice decided to land on three and seven.
- AussieWog93 5y ago>When people write text they use it to represent ideas and objects and relations between ideas and objects. That's not true, at least a lot of the time. Watch an episode of Paw Patrol, go see the latest Marvel movie or listen to number 6 or 7 on the top 40 charts. A huge amount of what we consider "creative" endeavours that only a human can produce have nothing to do with meaning or experience and are simply a group of people trying to create something that "sounds right" or looks cool, or in the case of a lot of kid's content, merely inoffensive to the largest segment of society possible. I'm not saying that GPT is going to win the Pulitzer Prize any time soon, but the line between "human text has meaning, machine text doesn't" is quite blurry and process-dependent.
- wvenable 5y ago> GPT-3 proves that you can automate creative writing. It requires creative input. It's just remixing what it already knows. Once you've exhausted that you're back to needing human creativity again.
- lambertsimnel 5y agoWhat are we humans are doing differently when we're being creative? I don't imagine we produce creativity out of nothing but effort. It seems to me that the source of our creativity is external, either in the form of experiences or in the form of processes that predate our experiences. Maybe both, but I wonder why machines couldn't in principle do the same.
- wvenable 5y agoHumans actually understand the words and concepts -- we aren't simply re-arranging words. That being said, we aren't doing anything machines couldn't eventually do (we are, after all, machines outselves). But GPT-3 is not what we do.