3 ms·
> 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 forma
by 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.
- nirvdrum 3y agoDefine “understanding”. Please provide a formal definition for “vague intuition”. These sorts of clipped sentences without any supporting context are understood to be delivered in bad faith. If you want to discuss in good faith, then elaborate. From here it sure looks like you wanted to score points by derailing the discussion on what you’ve deemed to be poor word choice.
- naasking 3y agoI've elaborated plenty in the post you literally just responded to. Nothing further needs to be said. Suffice it to say that your original claim was unjustifiable given what we currently know.
- nirvdrum 3y agoYou didn’t elaborate on the points I asked about. You literally argued with the response from a chat bot. You can’t just say “QED, I win”. Until I get satisfactory definitions the rest of your response is unjustifiable.
- Pent 3y agoas a third party observer, you never defined genuine creativity, you've been called and it turns out your argument was merely a bluff
- nirvdrum 3y agoThat’s quite alright. I’ve written amply about the topic of creativity in this thread in order to delineate it from “creative” meaning “something that creates”. If you don’t know what “genuine” means my Webster’s definition isn’t going to help anything. I’m not keen to have a debate over adjectives when I’ve more than explained my stance. I never claimed to be introducing some new term of art. If that somehow means I’m bluffing, so be it. I viewed the curt demand I provide a definition as rude and a cheap tactic intended to disrupt a discussion. And the ensuing discussion with that particular person did nothing to convince me otherwise. Fortunately, I don’t owe them a reply and you don’t have to believe me. It’s all good.