Even amazing writers and musicians can barely scrape a living. Being an artist is mostly unpaid labor that enriches Irish culture. Why wouldn’t we incentivize those capable of being artists for some pitiful sum of money if they’re willing?
No matter how much capitalists pretend that artistic talent falls from the sky like mana for the rest of us to enjoy, it isn’t actually free. It takes thousands of hours of effort to become something resembling an artist. And this program is a cheap way to make that happen.
A link to the paper itself, if like me you have a math background, and are wondering WTF that means and how you measure creativity mathematically. Or for that matter what amateur-tier creativity is. Unfortunately, it’s probably too new to pirate, if you don’t have a subscription to the Journal of Creative Behaviour.
At least according to the article, he argues that novelty and correctness are opposite each other in an LLM, which tracks. The nice round numbers used to describe that feel like bullshit, though. If you’re metric boils down to a few bits don’t try and pad it by converting to reals.
That’s not even the real kicker, though; the two are anticorrelated in humans as well. Generations of people have remarked at how the most creative people tend to be odd or straight-up mentally ill, and contemporary psychology has captured that connection statistically in the form of “impulsive unconventionality”. If it’s asserted without evidence that it’s not so in “professional” creative humans, than that amounts to just making stuff up.
If we increase an LLM’s predictive utility it becomes less interesting, but if we make it more interesting it becomes nonsensical (since it can less accurately predict typical human outputs).
Humans, however, can be interesting without resorting to randomness, because they have subjectivity, which grants them a unique perspective that artists simply attempt (and often fail) to capture.
Anyways, however we eventually create an artificial mind, it will not be with a large language model; by now, that much is certain.
Even amazing writers and musicians can barely scrape a living. Being an artist is mostly unpaid labor that enriches Irish culture. Why wouldn’t we incentivize those capable of being artists for some pitiful sum of money if they’re willing?
No matter how much capitalists pretend that artistic talent falls from the sky like mana for the rest of us to enjoy, it isn’t actually free. It takes thousands of hours of effort to become something resembling an artist. And this program is a cheap way to make that happen.
Or a few minutes and a neural net.
This is going to make people furious but it’s kind of true, and might actually part of the argument for the policy.
LLMs are mathematically limited to amateur skill ceiling in creativity. Additionally, they’re fundamentally combinatorial and incapable of originality. This is why we are yet to see a single page of LLM fictional prose that doesn’t suck balls.
A link to the paper itself, if like me you have a math background, and are wondering WTF that means and how you measure creativity mathematically. Or for that matter what amateur-tier creativity is. Unfortunately, it’s probably too new to pirate, if you don’t have a subscription to the Journal of Creative Behaviour.
At least according to the article, he argues that novelty and correctness are opposite each other in an LLM, which tracks. The nice round numbers used to describe that feel like bullshit, though. If you’re metric boils down to a few bits don’t try and pad it by converting to reals.
That’s not even the real kicker, though; the two are anticorrelated in humans as well. Generations of people have remarked at how the most creative people tend to be odd or straight-up mentally ill, and contemporary psychology has captured that connection statistically in the form of “impulsive unconventionality”. If it’s asserted without evidence that it’s not so in “professional” creative humans, than that amounts to just making stuff up.
So, when it comes to mental illness and creativity, despite some empirical correlations, “There is now growing evidence for the opposite association.”
However, there are inverse-U-shaped relationships between several mental characteristics and creativity:
Although you’ll notice that disinhibition rapidly becomes detrimental.
If we increase an LLM’s predictive utility it becomes less interesting, but if we make it more interesting it becomes nonsensical (since it can less accurately predict typical human outputs).
Humans, however, can be interesting without resorting to randomness, because they have subjectivity, which grants them a unique perspective that artists simply attempt (and often fail) to capture.
Anyways, however we eventually create an artificial mind, it will not be with a large language model; by now, that much is certain.