Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

KillianDrake t1_j9kmqd9 wrote

Reply to comment by hxckrt in Sci-fi becomes real as renowned magazine closes submissions due to AI writers by Vucea

what is "reason"? humans simply have more neurons firing in an insanely efficient manner.

when ML reaches the same number of "neurons" firing, it will produce the same kind of results. then it will be focusing on increasing the efficiency.

there is nothing special about humans

−2

hxckrt t1_j9lvpfi wrote

When you make a chip with just as many transistors as a calculator, does it automagically become a calculator? No, it needs to be wired for the job and you need to program it. In the same way, neural networks need weights and biases, their "training".

You can get the calculations going, but where are you getting the training data to make art and music superhuman? Because that's what the argument is about. Are you going to model the subjective appreciation of it? That doesn't work that way because you can't write a loss function for what "better" art is.

1

KillianDrake t1_j9ma7x7 wrote

adversarial networks, the same way they train Alphago - once you have something that can produce and understand stories, then it can rate them. It will generate and rate itself millions of times faster than the human race did, and just like Alphago became dominant enough to take down Go grandmasters, so will this.

No point fighting against it, learn to adapt, learn to adjust.

0

hxckrt t1_j9nq67q wrote

Ah so the answer is "yes, we're going to model subjective appreciation of art"?

Go has an objective score you can quickly calculate to get better than humans. Writing and art do not, so you're still stuck copying humans, because you need them to rate the output. You're confusing objective score (quantity) with subjective quality.

And "no point fighting against it"? You're starting to sound like the Borg gif. Try to understand how this works before you abandon all hope in favor of our robot overlords.

1