3 ms·
Is this even a real question? Yes. Yes they are. If a human has looked at wikipedia, that information is in their mind and available to be used as creative fod
by thefurdrake 3y ago
Is this even a real question?
Yes. Yes they are. If a human has looked at wikipedia, that information is in their mind and available to be used as creative fodder. That's how creativity works; you experience something, it creates a memory, and you draw on that later with other memories to confabulate new information.
I suppose it's possible none of the tested individuals have ever gone on Wikipedia, though. I could be wrong!
- imiric 3y agoI meant during the study. The LLM is capable of instantly recollecting all the information it was trained on when prompted with a question. Human memory and processing are far less capable. So the results of this test depended on a) whether humans were "trained on" relevant information, b) their capacity to recollect it, and c) their capacity to produce new information, i.e. creativity. The only fair comparison would've been to allow humans to consult the same information the LLM was trained on when asked the question, give them time to process it, and come up with an answer. Otherwise, this "study" is only proving that machines are better at processing data than humans, which is undisputed, and not anything related to creativity itself.
- flangola7 3y agoHumans recollect on what they have been trained on as well. I'm not seeing the tangible difference.
- thefurdrake 3y agoAh. I suppose that is fair. Maybe. Almost. ... I still don't know though. It feels like humans still have an out-of-band advantage in how we /remember/ data for creativity. Maybe I'm just not prepared to understand how we can quantify "creativity" between two different entities with vastly-different capabilities yet.
- blovescoffee 3y agoProcessing/parsing/digesting data so that it can later be used is crucial to creativity, else the creator is just a blank slate.