iliane5

This is really cool. Are the dialogue, etc. generated in advance or is it all being generated live for every scene?

I think it's quite amusing that despite being a "only" a language model that generates text by prediction, it's so good at it that it successfully tricks people into believing it's some kind of AGI that can figure out the "real" answer to anything and do any task and then when it inevitably "fails" a task, people say it's dumb.

But I do agree that for people who understand how it works, it's a bit weird not to be impressed that a language model has the ability to have such good understanding of things and such intriguing capabilities when it's fundamentally just predicting the next token.

Most would say it's art, which is why these models are so interesting and have had such quick adoption. If you were to reveal that it's AI-made, some would also change their mind or say that it's art but not exactly in the same sense that human-made art is art.

I just think that until AI has real intent, it's a different thing that what we do. Which is not saying anything bad it, quite the contrary.

The definitions will inevitably shift over time, they're already ultimately subjective. If you believe in god, it's not hard to argue that nature is art and quite a lot of people believe in god.

Sure, I didn't word it in the best way.

What I meant is that something that is "interesting" and/or "beautiful" is just artistic, such as nature as you pointed out. For it to be art, there has to be intent behind it, otherwise it's just aesthetically pleasing.

My point was that art is more than just something that's aesthetically pleasing.

The fact that a "dumb", generative model that is simply predicting the next token when given a prompt can talk so well, perform complex tasks and interact with humans in such a convincing manner is pretty fascinating.

There is obviously more to human intelligence than text based conversation but it is pretty humbling that such an aspect of ourselves can be replicated and be so convincing at such an early stage and perform better than some humans even when it makes stuff up: toddlers can't talk, kids are smarter but don't have the technical knowledge, most adults only have a few specific areas of expertise, etc.

>One question that bother me is does it really matter? If AI-generated content is on par with Human-made or even better does it matter anymore that an AI generated it? > If an AI had written Mozart's Requiem would it lessen its interest, its beauty?

I think it's about intent. Art is interesting and beautiful to us because there is an undeniable human intent in creating it and a vision behind it.

ChatGPT and DALL-E are pretty cool but I think until AI get it's own intent and goals it's pretty fair to try to separate human art and AI art.

Couldn't agree more.

This paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.07682) also touches on a pretty fascinating phenomenon - that when scaling up large language models they seem to "naturally" obtain new emergent abilities that do not exist on smaller models.

I'm not sure AI art will be the death of artists. The whole point of art (until now, granted) is that it's made by a human. People don't go to a concert to hear the mathematically best song, they want to be with other humans to see the human(s) they all like perform a show. Similarly, the "best" painting isn't necessarily the most beautiful or realistic looking, etc. Until AI gains real, measurable intent in what it does, I think it's a cool party trick/brainstorming tool but nowhere near replacing artists.

I think they'll move away from limiting or censoring it once the general public gets more familiar with language models and what they can/can't do. It's a bit of a silly endeavor to try to limit some answers when the whole point of ChatGPT is that there are a million different way you can get it to do what you want or trick it so ignores its prompts or its safety features. Either that or someone will move faster than them and release a 100% unfiltered model.

I wish they would make the Pro version less filtered and less apologetic about only being a language model.

Even it's a bit annoying, I do understand them trying to limit what the free, public facing model will answer but I'd say it'd be a pretty fair expectation to get more leeway for the Pro version.

In my experience, I've found it easier to get higher quality answers for specific tasks using text-davinci-003 than with ChatGPT. The ability to adjust temperature, frequence penalty, etc. can be a bit intimidating coming from just talking to ChatGPT but it actually helps a lot to 'steer' it.