• mangaskahn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      17 hours ago

      “Generative” is a misnomer. It will never generate anything new, it can only regurgitate existing ideas based on patterns that already exist. It’s very good at pattern recognition and summarizing, but lacks the ability to form a distinct new idea.

      • dondelelcaro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        It’s only good at summarizing things which have coherence to its training set. Any ability to summarize input outside of its training is accidental.

      • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        It will never generate something novel. Whether it will generate something “new” depends on your definition of “new,” which is a little more ambiguous than “novel.”

        Sorry if I’m being too pedantic.

        • mangaskahn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          16 hours ago

          That’s an interesting thought. Genetics is largely a mixing and copying process with occasional “hallucinations” in the form of transcription errors. Most of these errors result in the termination of the hallucinated code. Hallucinations that damage the termination process result in cancer. In the larger sense of evolution, there’s a robust external “review” process. Environmental pressures, predation, and resource availability weed out most of the mistakes and selects the results most likely to succeed.