Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jawshoeaw t1_j9ioh96 wrote

Reply to comment by amadmongoose in Sci-fi becomes real as renowned magazine closes submissions due to AI writers by Vucea

Chess is in some sense a solvable math problem. Writing is not

10

amadmongoose t1_j9iop1y wrote

We thought that writing, art and music would be the last bastions of human-only competencies but if ChatGPT is already this good then I'm sorry, it's just a matter of time

10

jawshoeaw t1_j9ip89n wrote

Maybe. I have been impressed with chatGPT , but mostly in its ability to replicate the tedious and practical. The things so many of us must do for a paycheck. You know that feeling that you love a song and wonder , will there ever be another song this good? Or a book where you’re literally depressed that it’s over and want to cry that nothing written will ever make you feel that way again? I don’t believe that will be reproduced by an AI . If it is I’m done

8

hxckrt t1_j9iv5lh wrote

It's good at replicating text patterns, but it doesn't reason, and can only basically only copy humans chatting. Midjourney might have been a better example. Point is that those systems will fundamentally not surpass human, just become better at copying us.

5

KillianDrake t1_j9kmqd9 wrote

what is "reason"? humans simply have more neurons firing in an insanely efficient manner.

when ML reaches the same number of "neurons" firing, it will produce the same kind of results. then it will be focusing on increasing the efficiency.

there is nothing special about humans

−2

hxckrt t1_j9lvpfi wrote

When you make a chip with just as many transistors as a calculator, does it automagically become a calculator? No, it needs to be wired for the job and you need to program it. In the same way, neural networks need weights and biases, their "training".

You can get the calculations going, but where are you getting the training data to make art and music superhuman? Because that's what the argument is about. Are you going to model the subjective appreciation of it? That doesn't work that way because you can't write a loss function for what "better" art is.

1

KillianDrake t1_j9ma7x7 wrote

adversarial networks, the same way they train Alphago - once you have something that can produce and understand stories, then it can rate them. It will generate and rate itself millions of times faster than the human race did, and just like Alphago became dominant enough to take down Go grandmasters, so will this.

No point fighting against it, learn to adapt, learn to adjust.

0

hxckrt t1_j9nq67q wrote

Ah so the answer is "yes, we're going to model subjective appreciation of art"?

Go has an objective score you can quickly calculate to get better than humans. Writing and art do not, so you're still stuck copying humans, because you need them to rate the output. You're confusing objective score (quantity) with subjective quality.

And "no point fighting against it"? You're starting to sound like the Borg gif. Try to understand how this works before you abandon all hope in favor of our robot overlords.

1

Vezeri t1_j9jtttl wrote

And it really still is, because they copy from existing material, but they don't think for themselves. Current AI is more capital A artificial like cheese whiz and not really capital I intelligent like humans are. It is impressive how well it imitates things, but the key thing is that it only imitates and it doesn't make anything that doesn't exist already. Maybe one day we will have true AI that will surpass humanity, but that really isn't ChatGPT or Midjourner lol.

2

KillianDrake t1_j9km4p9 wrote

how do you think humans learn? by being forced to read and learn from a ton of existing material... as a blubbering mass of baby fat, you don't know how to speak, write or do anything unless someone shows you from EXISTING MATERIAL.

0