Recent findings from the University of Montana and partners indicate that artificial intelligence can rival the creative abilities of the top 1% of human participants based on a standard test for creativity. Led by Dr. Erik Guzik, an assistant clinical professor at UM's College of Business, the t
They used the “Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking”, a pseudo-scientific test that measures and evaluates absolutely nothing of any objective measure or value.
Hah, yeah, that was my kneejerk reaction too: I read that as “the metric we use to determine creativity was found to be wildly inaccurate, with ML regularly placing in the 99th percentile”.
Embarrassing, considering how un-creative and original GPT-4 is. It’s an actual struggle to get ChatGPT to think outside of the box. Claude 2 on the other hand is much better at it.
But this goes to show how unimaginative the general population is if this truly is the case.
I have been playing with chat gpt for tabletop character creation. It’s not bad at coming up with new ideas. It is terrible at sticking to the rules of the game.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
They used the “Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking”, a pseudo-scientific test that measures and evaluates absolutely nothing of any objective measure or value.
Hah, yeah, that was my kneejerk reaction too: I read that as “the metric we use to determine creativity was found to be wildly inaccurate, with ML regularly placing in the 99th percentile”.
Embarrassing, considering how un-creative and original GPT-4 is. It’s an actual struggle to get ChatGPT to think outside of the box. Claude 2 on the other hand is much better at it.
But this goes to show how unimaginative the general population is if this truly is the case.
I have been playing with chat gpt for tabletop character creation. It’s not bad at coming up with new ideas. It is terrible at sticking to the rules of the game.
The context window is still too short for any story. They just forget about old messages and only remember the newest context.
That makes sense. The further back information would go, the harder it was to recall it. The answer wasn’t to think harder, but to fill in the gaps.
deleted by creator
evaluating LLM
ask the researcher if they are testing form or meaning
they don’t understand
pull out illustrated diagram explaining what is form and what is meaning
they laugh and say “the model is demonstrating creativity sir”
looks at the test
it’s form