3 ms·
It usually trends to the way over time. When you're demonstrating or studying a tech (like we're doing with gpt now), there's a tendency to go "here's what it
by dalbasal 4y ago
It usually trends to the way over time.
When you're demonstrating or studying a tech (like we're doing with gpt now), there's a tendency to go "here's what it can do." Once people start using it for more mundane work, the focus becomes "here's what I can do with it."
It probably doesn't matter what children's stories language models can write themselves. It matters what stories people can write using them. Same for software/graphic design/law/etc. These are just tech demos.
This becomes clearer once demos play out. 2 years ago, scripting a philosophical debate using language models felt like AIs expressing their opinion. By now, we're past that.
- svantana 4y agoI think (and hope) you're right. Recently, someone coined the phrase "bach faucet" to describe the mundanity of an "AI" that can compose millions of novel bach fugues that are indistinguishable from the real thing [1]. At the end of the day that is just pointless - abundant art serves no purpose in society, and its value will be zero when considering supply and demand. [1] https://twitter.com/galaxykate/status/1583907942834716672 https://twitter.com/galaxykate/status/1583907942834716672
- dalbasal 4y agoPrecisely. OTOH... using AI to create art shifts around supply and demand such that there will be practical implications. The way email correspondence between A customer and a bank may look very different once both are using GPT enabled email clients.