3 ms·

No, you're simply incorrect. You're asserting a type of "of the gaps" argument, the "gaps" being the machinations of intellect that produce ideas. Just becaus

No, you're simply incorrect. You're asserting a type of "of the gaps" argument, the "gaps" being the machinations of intellect that produce ideas. Just because you personally can't explicitly draw the line between ideas and their progenitors doesn't mean causality breaks down and the line doesn't exist. Every aspect of your reasoning is flawed, you're not even starting from a rational place and going in a reasonable direction, you're making all kinds of critical errors using uncertainty as a smokescreen. I've already given you a concrete example disproving your metaphysical woo -- in chess and other solved enterprises of complexity that humans cannot fully conceptualize, AI is capable of producing ideas that humans find "creative". This is because "creativity" means "problem-solved a novel problem based on the rubric of prior problems". It's a form of vector-based learning. Humans just happen to be far more "general" than a chess AI, but in its own vector-space, a chess AI is vastly more creative than a human, and can produce vastly more complex novel solutions. I'm sorry, but you are simply radically off.

sudosysgen 4y ago
If you accept that a branch-and-bound chess AI can be creative, do you think that a brute force chess AI, given sufficient time, can be creative? If you do, we simply don't have a definition of creativity in common and that's where the discussion should be headed, and if you don't, then I don't understand what's the point of your example. My position on the subject is very simple, chess players are assigning meaning and intentions to the chess solution that the machine doesn't understand. A branch and bound search isn't AI, even when you use a neural network to skip a few depths. Just because a human finds it creative doesn't mean that the process actually was. Humans fundamentally don't and can't use simple vector learning with the input vector being real world data, because humans use metacognition to come up with representations and models even before data for which it is useful exists. Again, there's no metaphysics here. The most abstract tool I'm using here is that of a concept/idea, and it's not metaphysical at all, it can be understood as a tangible mental pattern. Unlike LLMs, we can create and understand patterns without needing to having seen them anywhere. It's a fundamental difference.

sudosysgen 4y ago

If you accept that a branch-and-bound chess AI can be creative, do you think that a brute force chess AI, given sufficient time, can be creative? If you do, we simply don't have a definition of creativity in common and that's where the discussion should be headed, and if you don't, then I don't understand what's the point of your example. My position on the subject is very simple, chess players are assigning meaning and intentions to the chess solution that the machine doesn't understand. A branch and bound search isn't AI, even when you use a neural network to skip a few depths. Just because a human finds it creative doesn't mean that the process actually was. Humans fundamentally don't and can't use simple vector learning with the input vector being real world data, because humans use metacognition to come up with representations and models even before data for which it is useful exists. Again, there's no metaphysics here. The most abstract tool I'm using here is that of a concept/idea, and it's not metaphysical at all, it can be understood as a tangible mental pattern. Unlike LLMs, we can create and understand patterns without needing to having seen them anywhere. It's a fundamental difference.