roboboffin

If human need drives the creative process, then there will always be a human in the loop. Instead, each human becomes the “random seed” that initialises the process based on their own unique make-up. This is only different from how things work now, in that humans are also creating the artefact.

Similar to how synths meant we no longer need to play an instruments by plucking strings, it hasn’t affected the higher level creativity of creating music, only expanded it.

Depends what you mean by creativity. In some ways, AI is not creative at all, everything is generated by mapping text to visuals using diffusion modelling via a shared latent space. It has no agency or creative thought of its own.

Humans have demonstrated time and again, even things beyond our experience can be explored by us; quantum mechanics for example. Humans find a way to map very complex subjects to our own experience using analogy. Maybe AI can help us go further by allowing us to do this on even more complex ideas.

In theory, creativity is an infinite space. As technology advances it allows humans to explore more and more complex things; take the advancement of music as an example, synths, loops etc.

If humans are not stretched to their limits, and are still able to be creative, then the tools will help us find our way through this infinite space.

AI will never be able to generate everything for us, because that means it will need infinite computation.

I just had a thought. It used to be that complex C++ systems used to take so long to compile that developers used to go and have a coffee etc. This was before distributed compiling.

Maybe it will return to that, the job will have a lot of waiting around, and “free” time.

I’m not saying people will be laid off, although this is what the article is about. So, I think people will still be prompting, but if you can prompt an agent and it can happily code away, what are you supposed to be doing ? Watching it do its work ? The only option is that you will have to generate ideas of new work constantly to drive value. This is something that generally happens over time now, but as implementation becomes quicker; idea generation will have to accelerate.

The difference for me, is that things are changing too fast to keep up. For example, if a large part of your job is taken away seemingly overnight, by a new model, your whole job could change in a heartbeat.

What preparation are you supposed to do for this ? Previously, change was relatively slow and it was reasonable to keep up in your own time. I believe that is no longer possible.

I think workplaces will have to allow people time to adapt. So that if your particular skill set is replaced by AI, you have the ability to retrain to a part that isn’t.

Ultimately, large part of many jobs are repetitive, and can be replaced by pattern matching. The other side, creating new patterns, is hard and takes time. So, employers will have to take this into account. They may be long periods of “unproductive” time, or more risky evaluation to try new ideas.

No worries, I wasn’t saying to you directly.

I agree 15 disks is very difficult for a human, probably on a sheer stamina level; but I managed to do 8 in about 15 minutes by playing around (I.e. no practice). They do state that there is a massive drop in performance at this point.

Not sure why I am being downvoted. I am simply saying that we know there is a defined algorithm for solving Tower of Hanoi, and the source code for it is widely available. So, o3 producing the code as an answer, demonstrates even less intelligence, as it means it is either memorized or copied from the internet. I don't see how this point counters the paper at all.

I believe what they are trying to show in that paper, is that as the chain of operations approaches a large amount (their proxy for complexity), an LLM will inevitable fail. Humans don't have infinite context either, but they can still solve the Tower Of Hanoi without need to resort to either pen or paper, or coding.

I think that their point was that the problem is easily solvable by humans without code, and shows the ability to chain steps together to achieve a goal.

Here is a link to the press release about the drug discovery:

https://www.futurehouse.org/research-announcements/demonstra...

I think phrases like “going rogue” apportion too much agency to the AI. It is more likely that it just spirals out of control, and causes damage that way.

I can’t imagine that the AIs will just be let loose without strict monitoring, as this article alludes to.

I wonder if code becomes so complex that humans cannot understand, there may be a way to fool the LLMs into creating backdoors in the software.

For example, a open source LLM is produced, used everywhere, and it subtly inserts some malicious coding. Not saying this is happening now, but could happen.

Then when AGI comes along, this would shift to understanding the motivations of the AI and how they align with human ethics.

This research seems to show that two X-rays can be identified as being from the same person, rather than identifying the person directly.

However, I have no doubt that AI could easily de-anonymize data fully given enough data points.