Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 9292113" data-attributes="member: 7035894">One part of this discussion that particularly interests me, as an educator, is that it often involves an implicit comparison to how human intelligence works, and human creativity in particular. The problem here is that we don't understand exactly how humans do what we do. I believe that human creativity itself has a significant stochastic element - that we look for patterns and seek to understand and emulate them.Edit: For example, I am always being asked, by students and their parents, for suggestions to help them write better. They are usually looking for things like grammar workbooks or extra help sessions. Those can help address specific flaws (i.e. &quot;this is a comma splice and this is how to fix it&quot;), but my main advice is to read more, and the research overwhelmingly backs this up. If you want to be a good writer, you have to read, lots, and the more you read, the better you will get. Ask any successful writer how they learned, and the first thing they will tell you is that they are voracious readers. Every time.This is true of all other creative endeavours: humans get good by studying and emulating. There are no great musicians who don't live music, important artists who aren't doing art all the time, and so on. So the underpinning of generative AI, massive data consumption, is not as alien as many seem to think, even if it is done in a very different way. This is not to say that generative AIs think like humans do, or have anything like self-awareness, not to mention lacking our sensory apparatus and memory (though there is interesting research suggesting that generative AIs have been able to cobble together a functioning memory in order to solve specific tasks).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Clint_L, post: 9292113, member: 7035894"] One part of this discussion that particularly interests me, as an educator, is that it often involves an implicit comparison to how human intelligence works, and human creativity in particular. The problem here is that we don't understand exactly how humans do what we do. I believe that human creativity itself has a significant stochastic element - that we look for patterns and seek to understand and emulate them. Edit: For example, I am always being asked, by students and their parents, for suggestions to help them write better. They are usually looking for things like grammar workbooks or extra help sessions. Those can help address specific flaws (i.e. "this is a comma splice and this is how to fix it"), but my main advice is to read more, and the research overwhelmingly backs this up. If you want to be a good writer, you have to read, lots, and the more you read, the better you will get. Ask any successful writer how they learned, and the first thing they will tell you is that they are voracious readers. Every time. This is true of all other creative endeavours: humans get good by studying and emulating. There are no great musicians who don't live music, important artists who aren't doing art all the time, and so on. So the underpinning of generative AI, massive data consumption, is not as alien as many seem to think, even if it is done in a very different way. This is not to say that generative AIs think like humans do, or have anything like self-awareness, not to mention lacking our sensory apparatus and memory (though there is interesting research suggesting that generative AIs have been able to cobble together a functioning memory in order to solve specific tasks). [/QUOTE]

Verification