4 ms·

> I don't see how the authors are dishonest about it, or that the rebuttal refutes any of the actual claims made. Suppose I prepared a glass of lemonade and pu

• agallant 2y ago
  Sure - but it could still be pretty relevant if we want to ask about the future of beverage making and consumption, especially if new technology enables everybody to mass-produce lemonade (and similar sugary beverages) at home at minimal cost. I'm quite sympathetic to poetry - I actually wrote a blog post about this article last week https://gallant.dev/posts/whither-poetry/ https://gallant.dev/posts/whither-poetry/ But much like the "debate" between linguistic prescriptivism ("'beg the question' doesn't mean 'raise the question'") and descriptivism ("language is how it is used"), both perspectives have relevance, and neither are really responses to the other. I certainly hope people keep writing great, human, poetry. But generative ML is a systemic change to creative output in general. Poetry just happens to be in some ways simplest for the LLMs, but other art is tokens and patterns as well.
  • godelski 2y ago
    Personally, I think this would be a sin. To call something art which has no depth. We have too many things that are shallow. I think this has been detrimental to us as a society. That we're so caught up with the next thing that our leisure is anything but. What is the point of this all if not to make life more enjoyable? How can we enjoy life if we cannot have a moment to appreciate it? If we treat time off as if it is a chore that we try to get done as fast as possible? If we cannot have time to contemplate it? A world without friction is dull. It's as if we envy the machines. Perhaps we should make the world less tiring, so we have the energy to be human.
    • agallant 2y ago
      Human art most definitely can be reduced to tokens, since that's also essentially how we compress and transmit it. Now, whether a statistical token generator makes "real art" is subjective (as human art already is). And again, I'm actually quite sympathetic to the "humans are special" perspective. But the point of my comment is that this philosophical stance is not a practical reply to what will actually happen in terms of social dynamics and content creation/consumption. Whether we call it "real art" or not, generative tools exist and will be used. So, it makes sense to understand them, even if your goal for doing so is to mitigate their incursions into "real art." In other words, art must adapt. Which, it always does.
• pessimizer 2y ago
  > Suppose I prepared a glass of lemonade and purchased a bottle of vintage wine—one held in high regard by connoisseurs. I would tell you that there have been results about the blind testing of wines held in high regard by connoisseurs that might make you not want to choose that for a comparison.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • bccdee 2y ago
    The blind tasting studies prove that connoisseurs can't discern the price of wine by taste. They can tell whether or not they like it perfectly well. A good bottle, not an expensive one.
    • NeutralCrane 2y ago
      Does this not undermine the premise of the original metaphor (i.e. a glass of lemonade is somehow inferior to a fine wine)? Seems like a lot of goal post shifting.
      • bccdee 2y ago
        A glass of lemonade is not inferior. It's a different thing entirely. You can compare good lemonade to bad lemonade, or good wine to bad wine, but asking a group of people who prefer lemonade to compare a glass of lemonade with a glass of wine tells you nothing about the quality of the lemonade or wine in question. The human poets in the test wrote high-brow poetry, the AI generated low-brow poetry, and the audience of laypeople who were surveyed preferred the low-brow poetry. There's nothing wrong with a straightforward rhyme scheme or anything—it's not bad to be low-brow—but it's not a useful comparison.