zlacker

>>swolpe+(OP)
To me it looks like some of the more “interesting” posts are created by humans. It’s a pointless experiment, I don’t understand why would anyone find it interesting what statistical models are randomly writing in response to other random writings.

>>pllbnk+oF
And what exactly do you think you are, sir?

>>rhubar+PV1
A human, not a statistical model. I can insert any random words out of my own volition if I wanted to, not because I have been pre-programmed (pre-trained) to output tokens based on a limited 200k (tiny) context for one particular conversation and forget about it by the time a new session starts.

That’s why AI models, as they currently are, won’t ever be able to come up with anything even remotely novel.

>>pllbnk+eh2
Well, if you believe you’re powered by physical neurons and not spooky magic, that doesn’t seem very different from being a neural net.

I see no evidence for you magical ability to behave outside of being a function of context and memory.

You don’t think diffusion models are capable of novelty?

>>rhubar+Zd3
Neural networks is an extremely loose and simplified approximation of how actual biological brain neural pathways work. It’s simplified to the point that there’s basically nothing in common.

>>pllbnk+Kp3
Whilst the substrates may be different, that does not mean the general principles are.

Visual cortex and computer vision show striking similarities, as do language processing.