Idk. LLMs may effectively emulate human creativity up to a point, but in the end they are writing literally the most predictable response.
They don’t start with an emotion, a vision, and then devise creative ways to bring the viewer into that world.
They don’t emotion-test hundreds of ideas to find the most effective way to give the viewer/reader a visceral sense of living that moment.
While they can read sentiment, they do not experience an internal emotional response. Fundamentally, they are generating the most probable string of words based on the data in their training set.
There is no way for them to come up with anything that is both improbable and not nonsensical. Their entire range of “understanding” is based on the statistical probability of the next conceptual fragment.
I’m not saying that it might not be possible for LLMs to come up with a story or script… they do that just fine. But it will literally be the most predictable, unremarkable, innovation-less and uninspiring drivel that can be predicted from a statistical walk through vectors starting at a random point.
There is a reason why AI output is abrasive to read. It is literally written with no consideration given to the reader.
No model of mind of the effect that it will have on the receiver, no interesting and unusual prosaic twists to capture your attention or spur your imagination…. Just a soulless, predictable stream of simulated thoughts that remarkably often turns out to be useful, if uninspiring.
LLMs are fantastic tools for navigating the commons of human culture and making a startling breadth of human knowledge easily accessible.
They are truly amazing tools that can release us from many language manipulation burdens in the capture and sorting of data from diverse and unorganized sources.
They will revolutionize many industries that currently are burdened by extensive human labor in the ingestion, manipulation, and interpretation of data. LLMs are like the washing machine to free our minds from the handwashing of information.
But they are not creative agents in the way that we admire creative genius.
They don’t start with an emotion, a vision, and then devise creative ways to bring the viewer into that world.
They don’t emotion-test hundreds of ideas to find the most effective way to give the viewer/reader a visceral sense of living that moment.
While they can read sentiment, they do not experience an internal emotional response. Fundamentally, they are generating the most probable string of words based on the data in their training set.
There is no way for them to come up with anything that is both improbable and not nonsensical. Their entire range of “understanding” is based on the statistical probability of the next conceptual fragment.
I’m not saying that it might not be possible for LLMs to come up with a story or script… they do that just fine. But it will literally be the most predictable, unremarkable, innovation-less and uninspiring drivel that can be predicted from a statistical walk through vectors starting at a random point.
There is a reason why AI output is abrasive to read. It is literally written with no consideration given to the reader.
No model of mind of the effect that it will have on the receiver, no interesting and unusual prosaic twists to capture your attention or spur your imagination…. Just a soulless, predictable stream of simulated thoughts that remarkably often turns out to be useful, if uninspiring.
LLMs are fantastic tools for navigating the commons of human culture and making a startling breadth of human knowledge easily accessible.
They are truly amazing tools that can release us from many language manipulation burdens in the capture and sorting of data from diverse and unorganized sources.
They will revolutionize many industries that currently are burdened by extensive human labor in the ingestion, manipulation, and interpretation of data. LLMs are like the washing machine to free our minds from the handwashing of information.
But they are not creative agents in the way that we admire creative genius.