3 ms·

So you are arguing that the world does not have objective rule criteria, like Physics? And that an AI could not model the world and then run simulations and ha

So you are arguing that the world does not have objective rule criteria, like Physics? And that an AI could not model the world and then run simulations and have each simulation generate data and learn from that, similar to AlphaZero. Here is a possible objective win environment Model complex multicellular organisms that become capable of passing the Turing test that also self-replicate.

dudeinjapan 2y ago
My argument here is narrowly scoped to human language and literature. (We already know the objective rule criteria of life is 42.) It may very well be possible for an AI to read all of literature, and figure out what makes Hemingway, Tolstoy, and Dylan "good writing" vs. "bad writing". That has not yet been achieved. The problem, as the OP implies, is that by polluting the universe of literature with current-gen AI output, we may making the task of generating "good writing" in the future harder. Then again, maybe not. Perhaps we have enough pre-AI works that we can train on them versus the mountains of AI generating schlock, and determine the objective function.
- patrickhogan1 2y ago
  You seem to restate the argument of the submitted research paper in a narrow interpretation that is much different than its main conclusion of Model Collapse from synthetic data creation. But I will follow you down this interpretation. Why does a human have to judge something as good for it to be functionally useful? Humans never came up with the move that AlphaZero used to win 1 of the 4 out of 5 games it won. Was that a bad move? Did AlphaZero devolve to Model Collapse because it made that move?
  - patrickhogan1 2y ago
    And what’s interesting here is people will get annoyed with this. Am I pro-human? Absolutely Can non-human outputs be functionally valuable to humans and not per se harmful? Absolutely, we live in a biosphere that humans didn’t create or if humans did create it, it was humans more evolved than humans we are aware of.

dudeinjapan 2y ago

My argument here is narrowly scoped to human language and literature. (We already know the objective rule criteria of life is 42.) It may very well be possible for an AI to read all of literature, and figure out what makes Hemingway, Tolstoy, and Dylan "good writing" vs. "bad writing". That has not yet been achieved. The problem, as the OP implies, is that by polluting the universe of literature with current-gen AI output, we may making the task of generating "good writing" in the future harder. Then again, maybe not. Perhaps we have enough pre-AI works that we can train on them versus the mountains of AI generating schlock, and determine the objective function.

patrickhogan1 2y ago
You seem to restate the argument of the submitted research paper in a narrow interpretation that is much different than its main conclusion of Model Collapse from synthetic data creation. But I will follow you down this interpretation. Why does a human have to judge something as good for it to be functionally useful? Humans never came up with the move that AlphaZero used to win 1 of the 4 out of 5 games it won. Was that a bad move? Did AlphaZero devolve to Model Collapse because it made that move?
- patrickhogan1 2y ago
  And what’s interesting here is people will get annoyed with this. Am I pro-human? Absolutely Can non-human outputs be functionally valuable to humans and not per se harmful? Absolutely, we live in a biosphere that humans didn’t create or if humans did create it, it was humans more evolved than humans we are aware of.