Submitted by sheerun t3_zrk9n3 in singularity
I'd like to hear your opinion. Are the any prompts out there that have shown creativeness of AI somehow? I don't mean image generation, just language models. For me it looks like very advanced knowledge extraction, but I would assume true AGI should be creative? That is it should be able to come up with novel and interesting ideas.
are all humans creative?
No. They have more of it than we do.
Someone at r/ChatGPT found a way to simulate a text adventure game It works, but you get what you ask for. So you can do fun things. I would say that your question is making a wrong assumption You are assuming that a language model must be creative. But it doesn't. A model is a representation of something In this case language and a collection of text documents. But is Chad Gelato creative enough to replace a human assistant? The answer is definitely not creative enough. An assistant must be able to work with you To be cognizant of your needs and aware of your interests. This requires social intelligence which Chad Gelato lacks.
I've found asking it to use certain words and phrases after a request gives more creative responses. Especially if they don't naturally flow together. Sometimes uses them in unexpected ways.
Generic prompts will get generic answers.
Creativity is ability to make lucky mistakes by not following rules. At this point AI trying to achieve exactly opposite. No mistakes while acting “by the book”.
I have read sci-fi short novel once (don’t remember the author) where main idea was that particular robot was known to create amazing fireworks… until one of the guests (robotic engineer) noticed that this robot had some slight bug in his behavior and than out of goodness of his heart fixed it. The lady who employed the creative robot end up shooting that engineer guest once it become apparent that “fixed” version of the robot lost all creative abilities.
I agree with you that it lacks creativity. Mediocre and stupid are takes that could be improved on.
ChatGPT is good at the purpose for which it was designed by the developers: To assist users in learning new information in the format of a dialogue. It's the most advanced tool of its type, for the moment. While we could ultimately Google more thorough and comprehensive answers to our questions, ChatGPT takes about ~4 seconds to come up with a generic overview, and is performing extremely well for new software in beta that's analogous to a newborn baby.
I think your point--which is a good one--is that ChatGPT isn't the AI that other enthusiastic users and clickbait journalists are hyping it up to be. It's really just a better version of Siri, or Google Assistant, in some respects. The fact that it's performing as well as it is--despite its many flaws and limitations--is pretty amazing. In addition to the fact that it's breaking into more mainstream awareness, which is bringing more attention to AI as a whole.
Dealing with the hype and excessive exuberance surrounding this advance can get pretty old after a bit. I get that. I don't think it serves us to say that the advance is mediocre because we're dealing with many people's first exposure--and first real excitement--to an application of AI that they can understand and play with. As iterations continue, this might level out.
It is nice to ask for a simple code skeleton that gives an outline of a solution for something while you work on something else. I increased my productivity because I don’t have to google anymore for most lack of knowledge. It’s also good at analyzing code and concisely describing something. However, it only gets so far in my use case. But it’s impressive nonetheless.
> I would assume true AGI should be creative?
Yes. Though to what extent we don't know yet. I would assume it could be at least almost as creative as any human. But if it can extrapolate beyond it's knowledge base and not merely re-combine what it knows, then it might have a chance at being more creative than we are.
Yes, they do not think outside the box. You have to guide them in those instances.
>ChatGPT is good at the purpose for which it was designed by the developers: To assist users in learning new information in the format of a dialogue
Is that what it's for? If so it makes a lot more sense as to why it behaves in certain ways and has certain limitations. Though the amount of information it gets wrong is pretty staggering if you ask it a mildly specific question. I'd hate to see what would happen if people just listened to it for scientific or technological information without looking anywhere else.
>I think your point--which is a good one--is that ChatGPT isn't the AI that other enthusiastic users and clickbait journalists are hyping it up to be. It's really just a better version of Siri, or Google Assistant, in some respects
Yup. People ask it to make mediocre memes, bad stories, write code(badly), etc. Meanwhile if I wanted to ask the bot a slightly specific hypothetical question regarding space apparently I'm "being dense" and "not giving it a fair chance". Even if you just have a slightly niche computer question it doesn't understand and gives you a roundabout answer to say it doesn't know.
>In addition to the fact that it's breaking into more mainstream awareness, which is bringing more attention to AI as a whole.
"hurr AI art is taking over"
-AI can't draw hands being ignored by everyone. AI messing up on a tail and turning it into a cloth also ignored.
-Ignore how racist the AI is when rendering.
-ignore how the AI can't really do exact poses like you want them to. Try asking an AI to do that japanese love story thing where the guy puts his hand on the side of a girl's head. Good luck getting it to spit out a decent hand, a wall, and the characters you want them to look like. If you try for 12 hours with some editing magic you may be able to get something serviceable but not perfect for your needs.
They ignore that many of the AIs they're just hearing about because of media hype have been around for years and still have massive holes/aren't exactly easy to use by the general public.
>Dealing with the hype and excessive exuberance surrounding this advance can get pretty old after a bit. I get that. I don't think it serves us to say that the advance is mediocre because we're dealing with many people's first exposure--and first real excitement--to an application of AI that they can understand and play with. As iterations continue, this might level out.
I get the distinct feeling that this was written with chatgpt, hopefully I'm wrong and you just speak in a robotic fashion like me.
I didn't use ChatGPT to write it, but the snark was fair! I hate to think of the day that all people who write proper English, if a touch formally, are robots! :P
All of your points are valid. This is the cyclical nature of the spread of new technologies. People ignore the shortcomings for the presentation. The excitement they hear from others--which in the Digital Age is unbound by geography or significant latency--shapes their perspectives, and so on.
This happens with every major shift. I remember 56k dialup internet was amazing when the average user got hold of it, but I grated at its flaws and limitations. I maintain my opinion that yes, these AI systems have issues, but the things they can do are worth the positive buzz. Also important to remember that the singularity subreddit has a major hopium bias for "AI will solve incredible problems for us tomorrow, life will be utopian and amazing!!!" So...the sample here definitely trends positive. Go over to Futurology and it's the opposite. The most upvoted comments are doom and gloom 24/7.
These implementations, as you said, are not ready for primetime, or to be used by the average person in their day to day activities. DALL-E, ChatGPT, et al. are just proofs-of-concept. My excitement outweighs my understanding of the flaws and limitations, because I'm looking iterations down the line. I've played with ChatGPT for a while now. It's really just a novelty for me. But version 5.0? Who knows?
Just tell it to be more creative.
They're actually incredibly creative but 3 biggest corporate models are limited on purpose due to how they function:
https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/zsaot3/confining_infinity_into_a_cardboard_box_aka_the
randomwordglorious t1_j13nnj6 wrote
How do you define creativity? I have asked it to write very speicific kinds of poems about strange topics, and it did. They seemed creative to me.