3 ms·
That raises an interesting point. On the one hand, novelty is in the eye of the beholder, if you will. What has been done before might still be new to many. On
by eximius 4y ago
That raises an interesting point. On the one hand, novelty is in the eye of the beholder, if you will. What has been done before might still be new to many. On the other, randomness is built in and language has a remarkable capacity for uniqueness (see statistics about novel queries on Google). So it's possible and likely for LLMs to generate novel sentences. Whether those are valuable is a harder thing to think about.
- soco 4y agoGiven that even an army of monkey typists can generate a Shakespeare, why wouldn't an army of llms? Whether we call that "generating" or "creating" might be only philosophical.
- wizofaus 4y agoAn army of monkeys can only generate Shakespeare if you have enough manpower to sit around monitoring the masses of output, which makes it effectively not possible in any meaningful sense.
- yoshyosh 4y agoSome combination of users interactions with the endless output might create a decent enough opportunity. For example, Spotify discover combined with auto generated music (of a certain level) maybe is a possibility for this in that genre?
- melagonster 4y agoin now condition, some company rely on copy artists' style to make sure it good enough, and forbidden copyright.
- eximius 4y agoLLMs have randomness, but they are not random. LLMs probably won't generate new words, for example, so they could not have written shakespeare based on contemporary writings.