2 ms·

Its not like humans always have good creative output. A lot of human creative output is essentially unworkable bullshit that gets discarded quite quickly. I'm

Its not like humans always have good creative output. A lot of human creative output is essentially unworkable bullshit that gets discarded quite quickly. I'm not saying llms are good at creativity (i certainly don't think they are) but i kind of feel like its a difference in quality not kind. Like if you asked me to describe what it means for a human to be creative, i would probably write something quite similar to what you wrote above.

chefandy 2y ago
The main difference for my use case is what's usable about off-the-mark creative output to those who engage with it. With an LLM's hallucination, bullshit was made, bullshit was received, and that's that. If you figure out it's bullshit, the only thing you've likely gained from the exercise is having one less piece of bullshit to consider. With humans creatively solving problems, what they say isn't 'output'-- it's externalizing a reasoning process. Being off-the-mark about something is a beneficial part of defining the bounds of an unknown solution because it's based on reality. It's a tangible idea that can be reasoned about and modified-- not a collection of output. It's not a point on a scatter plot, it's a waypoint towards a useful end.