4 ms·

This research strikes me as hot garbage :/ In particular there are dozens of studies like this, which compare to AI with "humans" without adequately addressing

This research strikes me as hot garbage :/ In particular there are dozens of studies like this, which compare to AI with "humans" without adequately addressing sample bias: Human participants (N = 151) were recruited via Prolific online data collection platform in exchange for monetary compensation of $8.00. Participants were limited to having a reported approval rating above 97%, were proficient English speakers, and were born/resided in the USA. Average total response time for completing the survey was 34.66 minutes. Asking a bunch of random people to fill out tedious "creative" writing prompts for $15/hr is not a good way to measure humans. Baffling that the discussion didn't even mention this. But you see this all the time in AI research, and I am sure this headline will be repeated uncritically by many people.

Nasrudith 2y ago
It is still technically human creativity but for a narrow subset of humanity engaged in Mechanical Turking. Suggesting that it has surpassed the infamous "fake-AI" of substituting for a lack of true automation using outsourced cheap labor. Sort of like how the infamous "alpha-wolf" dynamics were from wolves following prison rules. Technically accurate but only for the "prison rules" scenario wolves and not general wild wolf behavior. I personally would call it a bit better than hot garbage but still not generally applicable.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  "Machines can appear more creative than humans when the Humanly are bored of the task and have no intrinsic motivation to do it well."
mistrial9 2y ago
a recent white paper aimed at the business crowd solved a lot of technical nuance debate by simply declaring that "General Artificial Intelligence" is when an AI can do better than fifty percent of humans on the tasks that they define as important -- mostly white collar desk job contents -- more than fifty percent of the time (!). The boldness to make this declaration (in the footnotes IIR) and then wax on about GAI this and that is the future.. really makes it clear that some writers will say anything for money.

Nasrudith 2y ago

It is still technically human creativity but for a narrow subset of humanity engaged in Mechanical Turking. Suggesting that it has surpassed the infamous "fake-AI" of substituting for a lack of true automation using outsourced cheap labor. Sort of like how the infamous "alpha-wolf" dynamics were from wolves following prison rules. Technically accurate but only for the "prison rules" scenario wolves and not general wild wolf behavior. I personally would call it a bit better than hot garbage but still not generally applicable.

Terr_ 2y ago
"Machines can appear more creative than humans when the Humanly are bored of the task and have no intrinsic motivation to do it well."

mistrial9 2y ago

a recent white paper aimed at the business crowd solved a lot of technical nuance debate by simply declaring that "General Artificial Intelligence" is when an AI can do better than fifty percent of humans on the tasks that they define as important -- mostly white collar desk job contents -- more than fifty percent of the time (!). The boldness to make this declaration (in the footnotes IIR) and then wax on about GAI this and that is the future.. really makes it clear that some writers will say anything for money.