As a writer I must just admire how you describe "our peacock feathers, the inevitable cultural exhaust that human lives create in the process of living." The whole way we use technology (and always have) suggests we are far more interested in being sociable than being factual, and so no matter how "good" a LLM gets, until it has social status and position, no one will care what it has to "say." :)
“Creative industries aren’t creative because they’re on an assembly line. They are wonderful because they are the ways we as a race express that which we can’t easily confine to data. Whether it’s painting or acting or writing or music, they are the expressions by us of what it means to be human. For us.”
Thanks for this, Rohit.
The entire music “industry”, meaning the creators, has been decimated by digital bullying. I can expand on that, but probably won’t. For the sake of convenience, listeners are forced to accept diminished quality. Creators, excluding the TS’s of the world, are farther out on the margins.
People accept mediocrity and worse. There will always be great art and great performers, but I see a pretty bleak path because of the power of Apple now, and the future mega-techno-lords.
I think you’re right. I am commenting on the monetary plight of artists. That has always been a tough road, but I think by any measure it’s worse now than it was 50, 40, 30, 20 years ago.
Hi Rohit Thank you for this response to the Hoel article. The discussions around the quality of training data sets is interesting. I’m assuming the training datasets mostly contain explicit knowledge (and other human chatter) which is now cheap and abundant. But the training sets don’t (can’t?) contain much tacit knowledge, which is necessary for most high value tasks. Could this be part of the reason why LLM’s are where they are now? (I have no experience in AI so I am just talking conceptually, please bare with me)
As a writer I must just admire how you describe "our peacock feathers, the inevitable cultural exhaust that human lives create in the process of living." The whole way we use technology (and always have) suggests we are far more interested in being sociable than being factual, and so no matter how "good" a LLM gets, until it has social status and position, no one will care what it has to "say." :)
“Creative industries aren’t creative because they’re on an assembly line. They are wonderful because they are the ways we as a race express that which we can’t easily confine to data. Whether it’s painting or acting or writing or music, they are the expressions by us of what it means to be human. For us.”
Thanks for this, Rohit.
The entire music “industry”, meaning the creators, has been decimated by digital bullying. I can expand on that, but probably won’t. For the sake of convenience, listeners are forced to accept diminished quality. Creators, excluding the TS’s of the world, are farther out on the margins.
People accept mediocrity and worse. There will always be great art and great performers, but I see a pretty bleak path because of the power of Apple now, and the future mega-techno-lords.
I think you’re right. I am commenting on the monetary plight of artists. That has always been a tough road, but I think by any measure it’s worse now than it was 50, 40, 30, 20 years ago.
Hi Rohit Thank you for this response to the Hoel article. The discussions around the quality of training data sets is interesting. I’m assuming the training datasets mostly contain explicit knowledge (and other human chatter) which is now cheap and abundant. But the training sets don’t (can’t?) contain much tacit knowledge, which is necessary for most high value tasks. Could this be part of the reason why LLM’s are where they are now? (I have no experience in AI so I am just talking conceptually, please bare with me)
China took a different AI path and applied it first to commerce, industry and logistics, leveraging its massive investment in 5G.
Since it’s best LLMs are as good as ours, they’re now well ahead in the field.