3 ms·
> It's very nature is without-meaning and without-originality. That's a pretty bold claim. What are humans but statistical models that generate based on pre-ex
by gsk22 4y ago
> It's very nature is without-meaning and without-originality.
That's a pretty bold claim. What are humans but statistical models that generate based on pre-existing training -- and yet, are humans not with-meaning and with-originality?
Of course, human brains are some large order of magnitude more complex than the neural nets that underlie most AIs, but we can already see areas where these "simplistic" AIs outperform humans on specific tasks. So what prevents the arts from being one of those areas? If not now, in some not-too-distant future?
- nwienert 4y agoTempting to leave it here but I’ll give it a go. One thing humans seem to have that is beyond statistics is creativity. In that stats explain what is, and creativity takes what is and makes a dot outside that other people appreciate. No model has demonstrated even attempting the dot, let alone having a good chance of success. What DALL-E does is draw a dot between a few existing points, but never outside. Humans incidentally have three more things that make for interestingness: emotions derived from feelings, long term memory, and roughly storytelling (~ an ability to turn long term memory into long form recall with a specific reaction intended to a specific audience). I don’t think ML has any of those, but it likely (eventually) gets the latter two. Meaningness/interestingness require at least a few of those, and it’s what puts most art in a different category than games or math.