4 ms·

The obviously takeaway is not that poetry by robots is really good, but that most poetry by humans is really bad.

• visarga 4y ago
  > most poetry by humans is really bad I think human average is below top AI on a large number of tasks already. We don't actually know how many because the latest generation of models adapt so easily, it's a matter of asking (finding the right prompt). For example GPT-3 writing articles on demand - hard to tell which is real and which is fake. Translation works very well, and no human could cover the same number of language pairs. And not just translation, but also voice recognition and speech synthesis. Models also do well in symbolic math and can generate code at average human level in competitive programming. Short poetry is possible, music composition is possible. I think the average humans can write worse poetry and music. Driving cars? Controversial, but AI may be better than the average humans. DALL-E 2 is a better illustrator than the average human. Even protein folding is better with AI than we could do with any other method. Games - it's hard to find games where the top human still beats the top AI. The idea is that we're passing a threshold moment now. Especially GPT-3 and DALL-E 2 and family, they have a radical new kind of generality. It wasn't like this before 2020. Now it's 100x easier to get an AI to do a task, no need to label much data, just tell it what you want and give a couple of examples, like you would do with a human. It's gonna be interesting to see the effects ripple in all the fields in the next 5-10 years.