For example, I can't wrap my head around how a) a human could come up with a piece of writing that inarguably reads "novel" writing, while b) an AI could be guaranteed to not be able to do the same, under the same standard.
Honest question: if AI is actually capable of exploring new directions why does it have to train on what is effectively the sum total of all human knowledge? Shouldn't it be able to take in some basic concepts (language parsing, logic, etc) and bootstrap its way into new discoveries (not necessarily completely new but independently derived) from there? Nobody learns the way an LLM does.
ChatGPT, to the extent that it is comparable to human cognition, is undoubtedly the most well-read person in all of history. When I want to learn something I look it up online or in the public library but I don't have to read the entire library to understand a concept.
Theres no cognition. It’s not taught language, grammar, etc. none of that!
It’s only seen a huge amount of text that allows it to recognize answers to questions. Unfortunately, it appears to work so people see it as the equivalent to sci-fi movie AI.
It’s really just a search engine.
In fact, I would expect it to be able to reproduce past human discoveries it hasn't even been exposed to, and if the AI is actually capable of this then it should be possible for them to set up a controlled experiment wherein it is given a limited "education" and must discover something already known to the researchers but not the machine. That nobody has done this tells me that either they have low confidence in the AI despite their bravado, or that they already have tried it and the machine failed.
Is it? I only see a few individuals, VCs, and tech giants overblowing LLMs capabilities (and still puzzled as to how the latter dragged themselves into a race to the bottom through it). I don't believe the academic field really is that impressed with LLMs.
The characterization you are regurgitating here is from laymen who do not understand AI. You are not just mildly wrong but wildly uninformed.
You can disagree. But this is not an opinion. You are factually wrong if you disagree. And by that I mean you don’t know what you’re talking about and you are completely misinformed and lack knowledge.
The long term outcome if I’m right is that AI abilities continue to grow and it basically destroys my career and yours completely. I stand not to benefit from this reality and I state it because it is reality. LLMs improve every month. It’s already to the point of where if you’re not vibe coding you’re behind.
I like being productive, not babysitting a semi-literate program incapable of learning
Again if you don’t agree then you are lost and uninformed. There are special cases where there are projects where human coding is faster but that is a minority.
There is plenty of evidence for this. You have to be blind not to realize this. Just ask the AI to generate something not in it's training set.
Same with diffusion and everything else. It is not extrapolation that you can transfer the style of Van Gogh onto a photographl it is interpolation.
Extrapolation might be something like inventing a style: how did Van Gogh do that?
And, sure, the thing can invent a new style---as a mashup of existing styles. Give me a Picasso-like take on Van Gogh and apply it to this image ...
Maybe the original thing there is the idea of doing that; but that came from me! The execution of it is just interpolation.
I personally think this is a bit tautological of a definition, but if you hold it, then yes LLMs are not capable of anything novel.
Mashups are not purely derivative: the choice of what to mash up carries novelty: two (or more) representations are mashed together which hitherto have not been.
We cannot deny that something is new.
I don't agree, but by their estimation adding things together is still just using existing things.
It is like expecting a DJ remixing tracks to output original music. Confusing that the DJ is not actually playing the instruments on the recorded music so they can't do something new beyond the interpolation. I love DJ sets but it wouldn't be fair to the DJ to expect them to know how to play the sitar because they open the set with a sitar sample interpolated with a kick drum.
i think that, along with the sitar player are still interpolating. the notes are all there on the instrument. even without an instrument, its still interpolating. the space that music and aound can be in is all well known wave math. if you draw a fourier transform view, you could see one chart with all 0, and a second with all +infinite, and all music and sound is gonna sit somewhere between the two.
i dont know that "just interpolation" is all that meaningful to whether something is novel or interesting.
If he plucked one of the 13 strings of a koto, we wouldn't say he is just remixing the vibration of the koto. Perhaps we could say that, if we had justification. There is a way of using a musical instrument as just a noise maker to produce its characteristics sounds.
Similarly, a writer doesn't just remix the alphabet, spaces and punctuation symbols. A randomly generated soup of those symbols could the thought of as their remix, in a sense.
The question is, is there a meaning being expressed using those elements as symbols?
Or is just the mixing all there is to the meaning? I.e. the result says "I'm a mix of this stuff and nothing more".
If you mix Alphagetti and Zoodles, you don't have a story about animals.
Would you consider the instrumental at 33 seconds a new song? https://youtu.be/eJA0wY1e-zU?si=yRrDlUN2tqKpWDCv
Meanwhile, depending on how you rate LLM's capabilities, no matter how many trials you give it, it may not be considered capable of that.
That's a very important distinction.
At any point prior to the final output it can garner huge starting point bias from ingested reference material. This can be up to and including whole solutions to the original prompt minus some derivations. This is effectively akin to cheating for humans as we cant bring notes to the exam. Since we do not have a complete picture of where every part of the output comes from we are at a loss to explain if it indeed invented it or not. The onus is and should be on the applicant to ensure that the output wasn't copied (show your work), not on the graders to prove that it wasn't copied. No less than what would be required if it was a human. Ultimately it boils down to what it means to 'know' something, whether a photographic memory is, in fact, knowing something, or rather derivations based on other messy forms of symbolism. It is nevertheless a huge argument as both sides have a mountain of bias in either directions.
Neither did you (or I). Did you create anything that you are certain your peers would recognize as more "novel" than anything a LLM could produce?
Not that specifically but I certainly have the capability to create my own OS without having to refer to the source code of existing operating systems. Literally "creating a linux" is a bit on the impossible side because it implies compatibility with an existing kernel despite the constraints prohibiting me from referring to the source of that existing kernel (maybe possible if i had some clean-room RE team that would read through the source and create a list of requirements without including any source).
If we're all on the same page regarding the origins of human intelligence (ie, that it does not begin with satan tricking adam and eve into eating the fruit of a tree they were specifically instructed not to touch) then it necessarily follows that any idea or concept was new at some point and had to be developed by somebody who didn't already have an entire library of books explaining the solution at his disposal.
For the Linux thought-experiment you could maybe argue that Linux isn't totally novel since its creator was intentionally mimicking behavior of an existing well-known operating system (also iirc he had access to the minix source) and maybe you could even argue that those predecessors stood on the shoulders of their own proverbial giants, but if we keep kicking the ball down the road eventually we reach a point where somebody had an idea which was not in any way inspired by somebody else's existing idea.
The argument I want to make is not that humans never create derivative or unoriginal works (that obviously cannot be true) but that humans have the capability to create new things. I'm not convinced that LLMs have that same capability; maybe I'm wrong but I'm still waiting to see evidence of them discovering something new. As I said in another post, this could easily be demonstrated with a controlled experiment in which the model is bootstrapped with a basic yet intentionally-limited "education" and then tasked with discovering something already known to the experimenters which was not in its training set.
>Did you create anything that you are certain your peers would recognize as more "novel" than anything a LLM could produce?
Yes, I have definitely created things without first reading every book in the library and memorizing thousands of existing functionally-equivalent solutions to the same problem. So have you so long as I'm not actually debating an LLM right now.
One grade might be your example, while something like Gödel's incompleteness theorems or Einstein's relativity could go into a different grade.
The secret ingredient is the world outside, and past experiences from the world, which are unique for each human. We stumble onto novelty in the environment. But AI can do that too - move 37 AlphaGo is an example, much stumbling around leads to discoveries even for AI. The environment is the key.
No
Edit: to be less snarky, it topped the Billboard Country Digital Song Sales Chart, which is a measure of sales of the individual song, not streaming listens. It's estimated it takes a few thousand sales to top that particular chart and it's widely believed to be commonly manipulated by coordinated purchases.