3 ms·

Based on clear, operational definitions, AI is definitely more creative than humans. E.g., can easily produce higher scores on a Torrance test of divergent thin

Based on clear, operational definitions, AI is definitely more creative than humans. E.g., can easily produce higher scores on a Torrance test of divergent thinking. Humans may still be more innovative (defined as creativity adopted into larger systems), though that may be changing.

qlm 1y ago
This is absurd to the point of being comical. Do you really believe that? If an “objective” test purports to show that AI is more creative than humans then I’m sorry but the test is deeply flawed. I don’t even need to look at the methodology to confidently state that.
- yunnpp 1y ago
  His comment must be fueled by his own lack of creativity. He has engulfed himself in the AI, and his own knowledge gap prevents him from even scratching the surface of his own stupidity.
  - dr_dshiv 1y ago
    That’s pretty rude. And wrong.
- dr_dshiv 1y ago
  It’s a point, I suppose, about being clear about what we mean. In psychology, we need to define terms in terms of measures — and we’ve traditionally measured human creativity that way. Not without critique, but true! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrance_Tests_of_Creative_Thinking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrance_Tests_of_Creative_Thi...
hansmayer 1y ago
More creative? I've just seen my premium subscription "AI" struggling to find a trivial issue of a missing import in a very small / toy project. Maybe these tools are getting all sorts of scores on all sorts of benchmarks, I dont doubt it, but why are there no significant real-world results after more than 3 years of hype? It reminds of that situation when the geniuses at Google offered the job to the guy who created Homebrew and then rejected him after he supposedly did not do well on one of those algorithmic tasks (inverting a binary tree? - not sure if I remember correctly). There are also all sorts of people scoring super high on various IQ tests, but what counts, with humans as with the supposed AI is the real world results. Benchmarks without results do not mean anything.
vachina 1y ago
It is as creative as it's training material. You think it is creative because you lack the knowledge of what it has learnt.

qlm 1y ago

This is absurd to the point of being comical. Do you really believe that? If an “objective” test purports to show that AI is more creative than humans then I’m sorry but the test is deeply flawed. I don’t even need to look at the methodology to confidently state that.

yunnpp 1y ago
His comment must be fueled by his own lack of creativity. He has engulfed himself in the AI, and his own knowledge gap prevents him from even scratching the surface of his own stupidity.
- dr_dshiv 1y ago
  That’s pretty rude. And wrong.
dr_dshiv 1y ago
It’s a point, I suppose, about being clear about what we mean. In psychology, we need to define terms in terms of measures — and we’ve traditionally measured human creativity that way. Not without critique, but true! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrance_Tests_of_Creative_Thinking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrance_Tests_of_Creative_Thi...

hansmayer 1y ago

More creative? I've just seen my premium subscription "AI" struggling to find a trivial issue of a missing import in a very small / toy project. Maybe these tools are getting all sorts of scores on all sorts of benchmarks, I dont doubt it, but why are there no significant real-world results after more than 3 years of hype? It reminds of that situation when the geniuses at Google offered the job to the guy who created Homebrew and then rejected him after he supposedly did not do well on one of those algorithmic tasks (inverting a binary tree? - not sure if I remember correctly). There are also all sorts of people scoring super high on various IQ tests, but what counts, with humans as with the supposed AI is the real world results. Benchmarks without results do not mean anything.

vachina 1y ago

It is as creative as it's training material. You think it is creative because you lack the knowledge of what it has learnt.