> still one area where it is notoriously bad is creation of novel things
Is there any proof of this? My feeling is that people just assume that since something has been generated by AI, then it must not be original. And truly original thought or craft is exceedingly rare if it exists at all: everything comes from something else. Individual innovations are often small.
> Because that is the only loophole in LLMs that can not be fixed
This is magical thinking. Humans don't have a small device in their head capable of "true creativity" whatever that even is. At most, they experience so much random input that their outputs are less predictable. But nothing that LLMs won't be able to do soon; as for raw intelligence, they're already smarter than the large majority of the population.
> still one area where it is notoriously bad is creation of novel things
Is there any proof of this? My feeling is that people just assume that since something has been generated by AI, then it must not be original. And truly original thought or craft is exceedingly rare if it exists at all: everything comes from something else. Individual innovations are often small.
> Because that is the only loophole in LLMs that can not be fixed
This is magical thinking. Humans don't have a small device in their head capable of "true creativity" whatever that even is. At most, they experience so much random input that their outputs are less predictable. But nothing that LLMs won't be able to do soon; as for raw intelligence, they're already smarter than the large majority of the population.
Is there any proof of this?
- ARC-AGI challenge
Is that specifically about originality? Or is it about other aspects of intelligence and cognition that LLMs can't yet reproduce at human levels?