Being an artist is a thankless mostly unpaid labor that enriches Irish culture.
Why wouldn’t we incentivize those capable of being artists (not exactly a ubiquitous disposition) for some pitiful sum of money if they’re willing?
Even amazing writers and musicians can barely scrape a living. Yet we love having Irish authors don’t we? Painters, likewise; poets, doubly so.
No matter how much capitalists pretend that artistic talent falls from the sky like mana for the rest of us to enjoy, it isn’t actually free. It takes tens of thousands of hours of effort to become something resembling an artist. It costs time and it costs money. Someone is already paying that price.
A link to the paper itself, if like me you have a math background, and are wondering WTF that means and how you measure creativity mathematically. Or for that matter what amateur-tier creativity means. Unfortunately, it’s probably too new to pirate, if you don’t have a subscription to the Journal of Creative Behaviour.
At least according to the article, he argues that novelty and correctness are opposite each other in an LLM, which tracks. The nice round numbers used to describe that feel like bullshit, though. If you’re metric boils down to a few bits don’t try and pad it by converting to reals.
That’s not even the real kicker, though. So are the two anticorrelated in humans. Generations of people have remarked on the connection between oddity or straight-up mental illness and the most creative people, and contemporary psychology has captured that connection statistically, in the form of “impulsive unconventionality”.
Being an artist is a thankless mostly unpaid labor that enriches Irish culture.
Why wouldn’t we incentivize those capable of being artists (not exactly a ubiquitous disposition) for some pitiful sum of money if they’re willing?
Even amazing writers and musicians can barely scrape a living. Yet we love having Irish authors don’t we? Painters, likewise; poets, doubly so.
No matter how much capitalists pretend that artistic talent falls from the sky like mana for the rest of us to enjoy, it isn’t actually free. It takes tens of thousands of hours of effort to become something resembling an artist. It costs time and it costs money. Someone is already paying that price.
Or a few minutes and a neural net.
This is going to make people furious but it’s kind of true, and might actually part of the argument for the policy.
LLMs are mathematically limited to amateur skill ceiling in creativity. Additionally, they’re fundamentally combinatorial and incapable of originality.
A link to the paper itself, if like me you have a math background, and are wondering WTF that means and how you measure creativity mathematically. Or for that matter what amateur-tier creativity means. Unfortunately, it’s probably too new to pirate, if you don’t have a subscription to the Journal of Creative Behaviour.
At least according to the article, he argues that novelty and correctness are opposite each other in an LLM, which tracks. The nice round numbers used to describe that feel like bullshit, though. If you’re metric boils down to a few bits don’t try and pad it by converting to reals.
That’s not even the real kicker, though. So are the two anticorrelated in humans. Generations of people have remarked on the connection between oddity or straight-up mental illness and the most creative people, and contemporary psychology has captured that connection statistically, in the form of “impulsive unconventionality”.