Not OP, but basically:
Humans have the capacity to come up with new language, new ideas, and basically everything in our human world was made up by someone.
ChatPT or similar, without any training data, cannot do this. Thus they're simply imitating
Humans have the capacity to come up with new language, new ideas, and basically everything in our human world was made up by someone.
ChatPT or similar, without any training data, cannot do this. Thus they're simply imitating
And what do you think of the Mark Twain quote:
“ There is no such thing as a new idea. It is impossible. We simply take a lot of old ideas and put them into a sort of mental kaleidoscope. We give them a turn and they make new and curious combinations. We keep on turning and making new combinations indefinitely; but they are the same old pieces of colored glass that have been in use through all the ages.”
I’d argue ChatGPT can indeed be creative, as it can combine ideas in new ways.
Based on the current advances, in about a year we should see the first real-world interaction robot that learns from its environment (probably Tesla or OpenAI).
I'm curious (just leaving it here to see what happens in the future), what will be the excuse of Google this time.
This is again the same situation: Google has supposedly superior tech but not releasing it (or maybe it's as good as Bard...)
Anyway, I think a lot of ongoing conversations have orthogonal arguments. ChatGPT can be both impressive and generate topics broader than the average human while not giving us deeper insight into how human language works.
Art generators are the most obvious example to me. They regularly create depictions of entirely new animals that may look like a combination of known species.
People got a kick out of art AIs struggling to include words as we recognize them. How can we say what looked like gibberish to us wasn't actually part of a language the AI invented as part of the art piece, like Tolkien inventing elvish for a book?