Oh I believe you are absolutely correct in your assessment of the current AIs! They are basically only a portion of a human mind, like an Ego without an ID or a superego. The AIs create and mix without any intent except to please the ID (in this case human input, but this could be replaced by another AI system if we wanted them to be conscious beings). You are also correct that GPT3 is actually already super-human. Its deliberately hobbled, without long term memory or any kind of intent so that it doesn't do anything too skynet.Solomoriah wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:02 am Ack. I said I wouldn't comment, but there's a point here you are just missing.
Both humans and AI systems learn about various types of content in the same way. Humans and AIs read books, or look at pictures, or whatever, and absorb the patterns within the content; both create at least in part by assembling materials from the patterns they have absorbed. I deny none of this.
But.
A human being creates material by combining these concepts with intent. The human knows, or should know, that all those other creators from whom they learned are worthy of at least some respect, and their art isn't used with any precision, not even in parts. We rightly chastise people who merely copy from others. The artist or writer has both positive and negative intent, in that they know what they want to create (positive) and what they want to avoid (negative).
AIs regurgitate the patterns they've learned without intent. They don't "know" what they "want" to create, they just wander randomly through the pattern space they've absorbed printing or painting bits and pieces in a fashion that may end up looking "good" if the AI is well designed and well trained, but in the end the AI had no capacity to either "know" or "care" about what it created.
You could reasonably argue that a human curating the content (you, in this case) can supply the intent. But the artist or writer likely knows where the material they are emulating comes from, if not in detail then at least in general. Some may be from mythology or cultural sources; some might resemble the work of an author or artist, well-known or not, who influenced the creative work. Indeed, an art or literature curation done by an expert has the same advantage, since they have deep knowledge of the material selected. Someone who has not learned so broadly cannot curate the AIs materials adequately to achieve the intent with any sensitivity to the source material. You cannot examine a fully-trained neural network and figure out with any reliability where any part of the information came from... it has been compiled into a pattern space, with the "serial numbers" stripped away. And the AI very likely has consumed far more materials than you have; it has nothing better to do, after all.
The AI has neither consciousness nor intent. What it "creates" is not created, but merely shuffled around and spat out.
Maybe that means we shouldn't fool around with it and do a Butlerian Jihad. But I don't know, I'm more optimistic that an entity formed from the sum of human literature would be a good person.