6 ms·

And yet these systems are incapable of genuine creativity. If they were, they would be taught rules & techniques and set off to their own devices to draw, like

And yet these systems are incapable of genuine creativity. If they were, they would be taught rules & techniques and set off to their own devices to draw, like humans. But, they can't and they're not. LLMs and humans don't learn or create in the same way. Moreover, there's no reason we should grant LLMs the full rights and privileges of humans.

marcinzm 3y ago
Are we going to hold all human artists to that standard as well? I suspect many would fail it.
- nirvdrum 3y ago
  I don't follow. Which standard is that? Many (most?) artists do in fact fail, particularly if they're unable to find a creative way to differentiate themselves. Society generally shuns plagiarism. We call out things that are deemed as "knock-offs", whether they're bands, video games, movies, books, or clothing.
r2_pilot 3y ago
And yet humans plagiarize all the time. And how do you measure genuine creativity? See the Chinese Room thought experiment. Also we generally don't make our tools able to "set off to their own devices" because that's silly. I agree with the substance of software operating differently from humans and that we should currently maintain a distinction between software and human rights. Of which I do not believe copyright is a fundamental one, merely a legislative one(and one I might add has been stolen from current living humans- I'm in midlife and I can't creatively revamp works that are twice as old as I am, how is that fair that I can't use nostalgia from my childhood commercially as an adult?).
- nirvdrum 3y ago
  And we penalize plagiarism. Sure, people often get away with it but it's not something we generally condone.
naasking 3y ago
> And yet these systems are incapable of genuine creativity. Define "genuine creativity".
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- nirvdrum 3y ago
  Given the terse reply, I'm guessing you disagree that it's even a concept. So, to round out the inevitable circular discussion I've gone ahead and asked ChatGPT for you: Genuine creativity, often attributed to humans, is the ability to generate, imagine, or invent something new and original that has value or meaning. It involves thinking beyond existing boundaries, making connections between different pieces of information, and coming up with innovative solutions to problems. Creativity can manifest in many forms, including: Artistic creativity: This is often the first thing people think of when they hear the word "creativity". It includes creating visual art, music, literature, and more. Inventive creativity: This involves coming up with new products, technologies, or methods that solve problems in novel ways. Conceptual creativity: This involves developing new theories, models, or ways of understanding the world. Problem-solving creativity: This involves finding unique solutions to challenges or problems. Genuine creativity is often characterized by originality, expressiveness, and the ability to transform or redefine existing ideas or norms. It's a complex process that involves both conscious and unconscious thinking, and it's influenced by a person's knowledge, experiences, personality, and environment. I went a step further and asked if it's capable of genuine creativity and received: As an AI, I don't possess creativity in the human sense. I don't have feelings, thoughts, or experiences, and I don't generate ideas or concepts spontaneously. However, I can generate unique combinations of information based on the vast amount of data I've been trained on. This can sometimes appear as "creativity", but it's important to note that it's a result of complex algorithms and computations, not genuine creative thought.
  - naasking 3y ago
    > Given the terse reply, I'm guessing you disagree that it's even a concept. My terse reply actually indicates an understanding that we completely lack a formal definition of "genuine creativity", and therefore any such claims are vague intuitions at best. > I don't have feelings, thoughts, or experiences This implicitly assumes we have a mechanistic understanding of feelings, thoughts or experiences. We don't, therefore we can make no such definitive claims about how machine learning and human cognitive processes. ChatGPT has specifically been trained to give this response despite agreeing with an argument that suggests it could indeed have mental states: https://twitter.com/naasking/status/1598802001428566016 https://twitter.com/naasking/status/1598802001428566016 > As an AI, I don't possess creativity in the human sense. I don't have feelings, thoughts, or experiences, and I don't generate ideas or concepts spontaneously Define "spontaneously". If you mean that humans act without apparent cause, that does not entail there is no cause. If there is a cause, then that cause can be modeled as an input into a pure function. ChatGPT and other ML systems are pure functions can also mix concepts and generate new and unique outputs from its learned state space given such inputs. Humans are still more complex than such systems, so the mystique can hide in the perceived complexity, but don't mistake this for a different kind of process. Which isn't to say that it is the same process, I'm saying there's no real basis for either claim. I think there's a lot of sloppy thinking going on when comparing human brains and ML, particularly ascribing some sort of exceptionalism to humans. There's a long, incorrect history of that.
corethree 3y ago
If the content generated by an LLM does not exist anywhere else... it is by definition "creative."
- nirvdrum 3y ago
  Which is precisely why I said “genuine creativity” in hopes of avoiding pedantry around word etymology. It’s hard to have these discussions when people are deliberately being obtuse. By this definition, nearly everything is creative making any discussion about it meaningless. So, let’s use the connotative meaning.
  - corethree 3y ago
    Ok yeah let's avoid that bullshit then. The problem is there's enough leeway between the words that I could honestly say everything LLMs generate are representative of what most humans define as "genuine creativity" and I bet you that I can show you human art and computer art side by side and you'd be incapable of knowing which one is genuinely creative. I hate pedantic vocabulary just as much as you and this is not the direction I want to take it. But that test I outlined above literally points out that there is no difference. What the LLMs output fits our definition of genuine creativity because you can't tell the difference. In fact the word itself is the ludicrous thing here. You just made it up to differentiate AI art and human art, but in reality there is no differentiator it's one category with zero recognizable difference... the only actual difference is "what" created it.
    - grey8 3y ago
      I think you're right. Why? Just observe how art and content is perceived before and after you tell people it was made by AI. I think it's an unfounded bias. You probably remember the AI art piece that won an art contest? It was perceived as better than the rest, obviously, or it wouldn't have won - until it was revealed it was made by AI. Now, IMHO, that was not fair and if it was disqualified, that was absolutely the right move, but that's not the point. The same can be observed when people talk about (AI) art. I've seen people comment "Awesome! There is just something about [this artwork] that AI can't reproduce, human art has soul!" even though the artwork they commented on* was made by AI After it is revealed to be AI made, it is suddenly "soulless" and not genuine anymore. I remember there was an online mental health care platform that (without revealing this) introduced AI therapists. According to their analytics, the AI therapists, on average, got higher scores than the human therapists. Then, word got out they're using AI and suddenly, people rated the service a lot worse than before. It was obviously wrong to not disclose this. There's nothing wrong with valuing craftsmanship and human work higher than machine work. We as humans do and I do, too - but generally, nowadays, digital watercolor art made in Photoshop (and co) is not inherently considered "not creative" or "soulless" because it wasn't painted with real watercolor... but I'm pretty sure that was not always the case. I'm sure artists discussed about how digital art is not genuine, creative or soulless back then, too. Can anyone that was there at the time tell me if there were similarities in sentiment when digital art and Photoshop (and co) became popular? What I'm trying to say is that there is definitely a bias at work and people generally can't tell the difference if they are not told about the (possibility of) involvement of AI. I also fear that currently, we're just the lame adults that don't like the new thing and eventually in 10 to 20 years after AI art is normal and accepted by the generation that grew up with it, something new will come out that that generation will think is lame and not genuine, and so on. That is how I remember it. I'm relatively sure, but take it with a grain of salt - memories are, as we know, not reliable.

marcinzm 3y ago

Are we going to hold all human artists to that standard as well? I suspect many would fail it.

nirvdrum 3y ago
I don't follow. Which standard is that? Many (most?) artists do in fact fail, particularly if they're unable to find a creative way to differentiate themselves. Society generally shuns plagiarism. We call out things that are deemed as "knock-offs", whether they're bands, video games, movies, books, or clothing.

r2_pilot 3y ago

And yet humans plagiarize all the time. And how do you measure genuine creativity? See the Chinese Room thought experiment. Also we generally don't make our tools able to "set off to their own devices" because that's silly. I agree with the substance of software operating differently from humans and that we should currently maintain a distinction between software and human rights. Of which I do not believe copyright is a fundamental one, merely a legislative one(and one I might add has been stolen from current living humans- I'm in midlife and I can't creatively revamp works that are twice as old as I am, how is that fair that I can't use nostalgia from my childhood commercially as an adult?).

nirvdrum 3y ago
And we penalize plagiarism. Sure, people often get away with it but it's not something we generally condone.

naasking 3y ago

> And yet these systems are incapable of genuine creativity. Define "genuine creativity".

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nirvdrum 3y ago
Given the terse reply, I'm guessing you disagree that it's even a concept. So, to round out the inevitable circular discussion I've gone ahead and asked ChatGPT for you: Genuine creativity, often attributed to humans, is the ability to generate, imagine, or invent something new and original that has value or meaning. It involves thinking beyond existing boundaries, making connections between different pieces of information, and coming up with innovative solutions to problems. Creativity can manifest in many forms, including: Artistic creativity: This is often the first thing people think of when they hear the word "creativity". It includes creating visual art, music, literature, and more. Inventive creativity: This involves coming up with new products, technologies, or methods that solve problems in novel ways. Conceptual creativity: This involves developing new theories, models, or ways of understanding the world. Problem-solving creativity: This involves finding unique solutions to challenges or problems. Genuine creativity is often characterized by originality, expressiveness, and the ability to transform or redefine existing ideas or norms. It's a complex process that involves both conscious and unconscious thinking, and it's influenced by a person's knowledge, experiences, personality, and environment. I went a step further and asked if it's capable of genuine creativity and received: As an AI, I don't possess creativity in the human sense. I don't have feelings, thoughts, or experiences, and I don't generate ideas or concepts spontaneously. However, I can generate unique combinations of information based on the vast amount of data I've been trained on. This can sometimes appear as "creativity", but it's important to note that it's a result of complex algorithms and computations, not genuine creative thought.
- naasking 3y ago
  > Given the terse reply, I'm guessing you disagree that it's even a concept. My terse reply actually indicates an understanding that we completely lack a formal definition of "genuine creativity", and therefore any such claims are vague intuitions at best. > I don't have feelings, thoughts, or experiences This implicitly assumes we have a mechanistic understanding of feelings, thoughts or experiences. We don't, therefore we can make no such definitive claims about how machine learning and human cognitive processes. ChatGPT has specifically been trained to give this response despite agreeing with an argument that suggests it could indeed have mental states: https://twitter.com/naasking/status/1598802001428566016 https://twitter.com/naasking/status/1598802001428566016 > As an AI, I don't possess creativity in the human sense. I don't have feelings, thoughts, or experiences, and I don't generate ideas or concepts spontaneously Define "spontaneously". If you mean that humans act without apparent cause, that does not entail there is no cause. If there is a cause, then that cause can be modeled as an input into a pure function. ChatGPT and other ML systems are pure functions can also mix concepts and generate new and unique outputs from its learned state space given such inputs. Humans are still more complex than such systems, so the mystique can hide in the perceived complexity, but don't mistake this for a different kind of process. Which isn't to say that it is the same process, I'm saying there's no real basis for either claim. I think there's a lot of sloppy thinking going on when comparing human brains and ML, particularly ascribing some sort of exceptionalism to humans. There's a long, incorrect history of that.

corethree 3y ago

If the content generated by an LLM does not exist anywhere else... it is by definition "creative."

nirvdrum 3y ago
Which is precisely why I said “genuine creativity” in hopes of avoiding pedantry around word etymology. It’s hard to have these discussions when people are deliberately being obtuse. By this definition, nearly everything is creative making any discussion about it meaningless. So, let’s use the connotative meaning.
- corethree 3y ago
  Ok yeah let's avoid that bullshit then. The problem is there's enough leeway between the words that I could honestly say everything LLMs generate are representative of what most humans define as "genuine creativity" and I bet you that I can show you human art and computer art side by side and you'd be incapable of knowing which one is genuinely creative. I hate pedantic vocabulary just as much as you and this is not the direction I want to take it. But that test I outlined above literally points out that there is no difference. What the LLMs output fits our definition of genuine creativity because you can't tell the difference. In fact the word itself is the ludicrous thing here. You just made it up to differentiate AI art and human art, but in reality there is no differentiator it's one category with zero recognizable difference... the only actual difference is "what" created it.
  - grey8 3y ago
    I think you're right. Why? Just observe how art and content is perceived before and after you tell people it was made by AI. I think it's an unfounded bias. You probably remember the AI art piece that won an art contest? It was perceived as better than the rest, obviously, or it wouldn't have won - until it was revealed it was made by AI. Now, IMHO, that was not fair and if it was disqualified, that was absolutely the right move, but that's not the point. The same can be observed when people talk about (AI) art. I've seen people comment "Awesome! There is just something about [this artwork] that AI can't reproduce, human art has soul!" even though the artwork they commented on* was made by AI After it is revealed to be AI made, it is suddenly "soulless" and not genuine anymore. I remember there was an online mental health care platform that (without revealing this) introduced AI therapists. According to their analytics, the AI therapists, on average, got higher scores than the human therapists. Then, word got out they're using AI and suddenly, people rated the service a lot worse than before. It was obviously wrong to not disclose this. There's nothing wrong with valuing craftsmanship and human work higher than machine work. We as humans do and I do, too - but generally, nowadays, digital watercolor art made in Photoshop (and co) is not inherently considered "not creative" or "soulless" because it wasn't painted with real watercolor... but I'm pretty sure that was not always the case. I'm sure artists discussed about how digital art is not genuine, creative or soulless back then, too. Can anyone that was there at the time tell me if there were similarities in sentiment when digital art and Photoshop (and co) became popular? What I'm trying to say is that there is definitely a bias at work and people generally can't tell the difference if they are not told about the (possibility of) involvement of AI. I also fear that currently, we're just the lame adults that don't like the new thing and eventually in 10 to 20 years after AI art is normal and accepted by the generation that grew up with it, something new will come out that that generation will think is lame and not genuine, and so on. That is how I remember it. I'm relatively sure, but take it with a grain of salt - memories are, as we know, not reliable.