You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-1 points

it’s literally impossible for it to move beyond that. It doesn’t have the power of creativity.

You sure about that?

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

a test for creativity seriously that work? also after scraping the entire of internet of course someone could think that, ask any programmer and they gonna explain that the IA don’t create anything, it can’t even do basic msth because it don’t gave logic in that,maybe one day, but not with chatgpt of today

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yes, a test for creativity. If you’re going to say something “doesn’t have the power of creativity” then it behooves you to accept the notion that creativity is measurable.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

@Vilian @FaceDeer I agree. I’m no programmer but do a fair bit of Linux/powershell/bash scripting. Virtually all the code that ChatGPT gives me is wrong. You tell it the errors, and it gives you a modified script with errors, point out those errors and it’s go back to its first answer. The only thing it is useful for is writing lots of basic code, really quickly. I can just copy/paste then start debugging.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I am a programmer and I’ve found ChatGPT to be able to produce plenty of good, useful code. I haven’t encountered the problems you’re describing in correcting its errors, perhaps you’re not prompting it well.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

This is the key - it does not create, it can only copy. Which is good enough to fool us - there’s enough stuff to copy out there that you can spend your whole life copying other people and nobody will ever notice you’re not actually creating anything new. What’s more, you’ll probably come across as pretty clever. But you’re not creating anything new.

For me, this poses an existential threat to academia. It might halt development in the field without researchers even noticing: Their words look fine, as if they had thought it through, and they of course read it to make sure it’s logically consistent. However, the creative force is gone. Nothing new will come under the sun - the kind of new thoughts that can only be made by creative humans thinking new thoughts that have never been put on paper before.

If we give up that, what’s even the point of doing science in the first place.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

There’s a difference between:

  1. Using ChatGPT to help write parts of the text in the same way you’d use a grammar- or spell-checker (e.g. if English isn’t your first language) after you’ve finished the experiments

  2. Using ChatGPT to write a paper without even doing any experiments

Clearly the second is academic misconduct. The first one is a lot more defensible.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

This is the key - it does not create, it can only copy.

I have asked ChatGPT to write poetry on subjects that I know with great certainty have never had poems written about them.

You can of course shuffle around the meanings of “create” and “copy” to try to accommodate that, but eventually you end up with a “copying” process that’s so flexible and malleable that it might as well be creativity. It’s not like what comes out of human brains isn’t based on stuff that went into them earlier either.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Science

!science@lemmy.ml

Create post

Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage


Community stats

  • 433

    Monthly active users

  • 1.1K

    Posts

  • 3.3K

    Comments

Community moderators