3 ms·

If you're interested, I explained my argument in more detail in a sibling to this comment. > As far as I'm concerned, the LLMs can't just hide the needle in th

by ekidd 4y ago

If you're interested, I explained my argument in more detail in a sibling to this comment. > As far as I'm concerned, the LLMs can't just hide the needle in the haystack and then say "well we aren't infringing so long as you don't find the needle". I think that GPT 3.5 is capable of significantly more creativity than you're claiming here. Not consistently, and certainly not in the realm of legal writing. But it can compose cute little original stories in mostly grammatical Latin, stories that exist nowhere on the Internet. And the related model used by Copilot can write code using newly-created, unpublished APIs. > To be more clear, when a human goes to a museum and looks at art, or lets say, studies it in university, I don't think what happens in the brain is in any way analogous to what happens when these models are "trained". As I argue in the sibling comment, I strongly suspect that GPT models have stumbled across a weaker cousin of one of the major tricks underlying raw human creativity. Current LLMs can't "think", nor can they edit, introspect, persist, or have any non-trivial goals. They can't even grasp the difference between truth and confabulation. But I do think that they can create. And that the processes by which they do so are not entirely alien to what our brains do.

freejazz 4y ago
I think you are being very generous with your use of the word creativity and what is meant by it, especially in the human context. Would we call it creativity if 1000 monkeys typed out Shakespeare? I don't think so, it'd be an amazing coincidence. I think these models are more akin to an amazing coincidence than they are creativity. Yes, it is true the thing was created by the model, but that's not what people mean when they say someone was creative. Here is a definition: "relating to or involving the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work" Your argument implicitly assumes that the model is doing anything like using imagination or creation of new ideas. It's my belief that when people refer to creativity, they mean more than just the act of manufacturing or producing a thing. This is my fundamental issue with these models and the proponents that say they are doing human things. I don't see any arguments to substantiate this belief, just the misuse of words and the misapplication (i.e. anthropomorphizing) of computer processes to the most conveniently analogous human process, but without any substance. I admit, I don't have a substantive basis for my argument, but I believe it should be on the proponents of this tech to prove that it is similar to humans in these senses, and shouldn't be my burden to disprove.

by ekidd 4y ago

freejazz 4y ago

I think you are being very generous with your use of the word creativity and what is meant by it, especially in the human context. Would we call it creativity if 1000 monkeys typed out Shakespeare? I don't think so, it'd be an amazing coincidence. I think these models are more akin to an amazing coincidence than they are creativity. Yes, it is true the thing was created by the model, but that's not what people mean when they say someone was creative. Here is a definition: "relating to or involving the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work" Your argument implicitly assumes that the model is doing anything like using imagination or creation of new ideas. It's my belief that when people refer to creativity, they mean more than just the act of manufacturing or producing a thing. This is my fundamental issue with these models and the proponents that say they are doing human things. I don't see any arguments to substantiate this belief, just the misuse of words and the misapplication (i.e. anthropomorphizing) of computer processes to the most conveniently analogous human process, but without any substance. I admit, I don't have a substantive basis for my argument, but I believe it should be on the proponents of this tech to prove that it is similar to humans in these senses, and shouldn't be my burden to disprove.