Re:91% of ML Models Degrade over Time
by borissk on Friday April 14, 2023 @05:41AM
(#35567375)
Such a definition of creativity can make you feel good, but it's of little practical use. Say you're shown a newly invented piece of tech, but not told who or what invented it - you're saying there's no way to decide if it's truly innovative (as innovation is applied creativity).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:91% of ML Models Degrade over Time
by AlecSchueler on Friday April 14, 2023 @05:51AM
(#35567474)
Of course it was innovative as the person behind the creation had to innovate to make it, as I understand the position.
Re:91% of ML Models Degrade over Time
by dpkirchner on Friday April 14, 2023 @06:57AM
(#35567978)
I think the argument is: you don't know if the tech was made by a person -- it might have been made by an AI. Do you wait to learn if a person was involved before declaring it innovative (or creative)?
Re:91% of ML Models Degrade over Time
by AlecSchueler on Saturday April 15, 2023 @06:59AM
(#35579447)
But the original argument was that it could only have been made by a human, either the human who made it themselves or the human who prompted the AI.
It makes me feel good, indeed. I like to have an opinion on things. In this case "is ChatGPT creative?".
> you're saying there's no way to decide if it's truly innovative (as innovation is applied creativity).
I am not saying such thing.