Share this 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 crea…
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.)
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).
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.