"Cognition" is an ambiguous metric next to "sentience". Nothing is written from scratch, really. Everyone builds on what they observed or read in the past. Self thinking? Learning? I would award you karma just for the savvy of your argument but I don't have any left.
Are you a writer? If so would you use these tools if you were enabled to do so? If you are a writer then how would you feel about them being used by companies with these enormous resources?
I don't know if I believe in AI, and I absolutely don't know what defines such. Even with my measure of intelligence I didn't know whether to use a hyphen with "AI Generated". True AI is defined by sentience, no current applications or even perceivable applications are capable of that. All of this I think is a different argument and maybe that is your point, that I mis-titled my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
The problem is "AI" isn't anywhere near being able to actually create.
Most AI Hype is just hype.
What so-called AI can do today is pattern recognition and decision-tree navigation. Any story it "created" would be a "choose your own adventure" splicing of boilerplate. AI can't even write a single paragraph from scratch.
Turing test is just a test of formatting not a real cognition test; how to splice canned answers in a conversational mode to fake out humans.
Here's what honest techies in the AI business are saying:
https://www.cnet.com/news/ai-is-very...red-to-humans/
https://www.iflscience.com/technolog...usly-terrible/
Someday somebody might assemble a database of text snippets and writing rules and get a computer to write a readable story. But it won't be soon and the computer will be named MULTIVAC. |