4 ms·

To borrow from Joscha Bach: if you like the output, it's called creativity. If you don't, it's called a hallucination.

CharlesW 3y ago
I love that, what's it from? (My Google-fu failed.) Unexpected responses are often a joy when using AI in a creative context. https://www.cell.com/trends/neurosciences/abstract/S0166-2236(00)02081-6 https://www.cell.com/trends/neurosciences/abstract/S0166-223...
- a_wild_dandan 3y ago
  It was from one of his podcast appearances. Which doesn't narrow it down much, unfortunately. Most likely options: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgwjcqhkOA4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgwjcqhkOA4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIKbp3KcS8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIKbp3KcS8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcQMYNi9a2w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcQMYNi9a2w
Aachen 3y ago
That sounds funny, but is it true? Certainly there's a bias that goes towards what you're quoting, but would you otherwise genuinely call the computer creative? Is that a positive aspect of a speech codec or of an information source? Creative is when you ask a neural net to create a poem, or something else from "scratch" (meant to be unique). Hallucination is when you didn't ask it to make its answer up but to recite or rephrase things it has directly observed That's my layman's understanding anyway, let me know if you agree
- skybrian 3y ago
  That's almost the same. You could say it's being creative by not following directions. Creativity isn't well-defined. If you generate things at random, they are all unique. If you then filter them to remove all the bad output, the result could be just as "creative" as anything someone could write. (In principle. In practice, it's not that easy.) And that's how evolution works. Many organisms have very "creative" designs. Filtering at scale, over a long enough period of time, is very powerful. Generative models are sort of like that in that they often use a random number generator as input, and they could generate thousands of possible outputs. So it's not clear why this couldn't be just as creative as anything else, in principle. The filtering step is often not that good, though. Sometimes it's done manually, and we call that cherry-picking.
Dylan16807 3y ago
Doesn't the context affect things much more than whether you like the particular results? Either way, "creativity" in the playback of my voice call is just as bad.

I love that, what's it from? (My Google-fu failed.) Unexpected responses are often a joy when using AI in a creative context. https://www.cell.com/trends/neurosciences/abstract/S0166-2236(00)02081-6 https://www.cell.com/trends/neurosciences/abstract/S0166-223...

a_wild_dandan 3y ago
It was from one of his podcast appearances. Which doesn't narrow it down much, unfortunately. Most likely options: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgwjcqhkOA4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgwjcqhkOA4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIKbp3KcS8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIKbp3KcS8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcQMYNi9a2w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcQMYNi9a2w

Aachen 3y ago

That sounds funny, but is it true? Certainly there's a bias that goes towards what you're quoting, but would you otherwise genuinely call the computer creative? Is that a positive aspect of a speech codec or of an information source? Creative is when you ask a neural net to create a poem, or something else from "scratch" (meant to be unique). Hallucination is when you didn't ask it to make its answer up but to recite or rephrase things it has directly observed That's my layman's understanding anyway, let me know if you agree

skybrian 3y ago
That's almost the same. You could say it's being creative by not following directions. Creativity isn't well-defined. If you generate things at random, they are all unique. If you then filter them to remove all the bad output, the result could be just as "creative" as anything someone could write. (In principle. In practice, it's not that easy.) And that's how evolution works. Many organisms have very "creative" designs. Filtering at scale, over a long enough period of time, is very powerful. Generative models are sort of like that in that they often use a random number generator as input, and they could generate thousands of possible outputs. So it's not clear why this couldn't be just as creative as anything else, in principle. The filtering step is often not that good, though. Sometimes it's done manually, and we call that cherry-picking.

Dylan16807 3y ago

Doesn't the context affect things much more than whether you like the particular results? Either way, "creativity" in the playback of my voice call is just as bad.