no matter what you ask AI to do, it’s going to give you an “average“ answer. Even if you tell it to use a very distinct specific voice and write in a very specific tone, it’s going to give you the “average“ specific voice and tone you’ve asked for. AI is the antithesis of creativity and originality. This gives me hope.

▲

IX-103 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

That's mostly true of humans though. They almost always give average answers. That works out because 1) most of the work that needs to be done is repetitive, not new so average answers are okay 2) the solution space that has been explored by humans is not convex, so average answers will still hit unexplored territory most of the time

	▲	cobbzilla 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Absolutely! You can communicate with without (or with minimal) creativity. It’s not required in most cases. So AI is definitely very useful, and it can ape creativity better and better, but it will always be “faking it”.

▲

chuckadams 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

What is creative or original thought? You are not the first person to say this after all.

▲

cobbzilla 4 days ago | parent [-]

Not being 100% algorithmically or mathematically derived is a good start. I’m certain there’s more but to me this is a minimum bar.

▲

int_19h 3 days ago | parent [-]

If your brain is not running algorithms (which are ultimately just math regardless of the compute substrate), how do you imagine it working then, aside from religious woo like "souls"?

▲

chuckadams 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I dunno, I think artificiality is a pretty reasonable criterion to go by, but it doesn't seem at all related to originality, nor does originality really stack up when we too are also repeating and remixing what we were previously taught. Clearly we do a lot more than that as well, but when it comes to defining creativity, I don't think we're any closer to nailing that Jello to the tree.

▲

cobbzilla 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

sure and physics is all strings and pure math at the the most fundamental level; kind of misses the point.

	▲	int_19h a day ago \| parent [-]
		If that's your take, then you need to explain how the gap between this fundamental level and the level that you're concerned with is different in those two cases.