160 Comments
⭠ Return to thread

The 'creativity' I mean comes from the slight randomness in pixel/token selection. I agree one could object to the use of the word 'creativity' here, but if you look for instance to the example I give for 'high temperature' GPT results in my talk, it seems that — however dumb the mechanism behind it — it is acceptable to label such results 'creative'.

Expand full comment

No. A six-sided die you throw is not creative. It's a stupid die.

Expand full comment

I think what Gerben is trying to say is: yes, it's not creative, it's rolling a die.

But if you're rolling enough dice, then it GIVES THE APPEARANCE of creativity.

Expand full comment

Yes, and I think I understand the sentiment.

However, it seems rather obvious to me that global temperature is not the answer, since actual creativity is *selective*.

(I.e. you don't want to be creative when evaluating 2+2, but fundamentally there really is no way to know (at runtime) whether the expression you are looking at requires creativity or rigour - I'd even conjecture that this precise function is NP-hard.)

Expand full comment

OK, if you want to be *really* precise I would say that what we *experience* as creativity is the result of the 'constrained randomness' of the model's token/pixel selection. Discussing if that can be seen as 'being' creative gets us talking about meaning and use of words like 'creative'. In general, the use of 'creative' for this dumb process is acceptable. Throwing a dice many times 'creates' a random sequence, for instance.

Talking in detail about this being or not being correct use of the term 'creative' is I think a dead end.

Note that these GenAI's aren't bad at 'creativity' but above all at 'rigour' (because they have none).

Expand full comment

You know we're not referring to a "dumb process" here. When you have a sentence such as "He is being creative" a "dumb process" isn't being referred to. Let's not pretend that some term being used doesn't mean what it means.

Expand full comment