Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
david_chisnall

@mcmullin I would interpret it somewhat more positively. Most people are good at a fairly small set of things. I've had four books published in English, but French is my second-best language and there's no way I'd be able to write a book in it. There are vast numbers of languages where I'm even worse, yet with a language model I may be able to at least be comprehensible, if not erudite.

Looking at things like painting or music composition, I'm well below the average of people who produce anything that would go into a training dataset.

Most people are bad at most things. Talented people are typically talented only in a small set of things. It takes time and practive to become really good at something. If, without AI, I can be good at a handful of things and completely useless at a lot of things, but with AI I can be good at the same set of things and mediocre in a lot of things, that's a win.

Unfortunately, so far, the set of things where it can get me up to even mediocrity is fairly small.

2 comments
David McMullin

@david_chisnall
I think your interpretation is correct. But I look at this mainly from the point of view of how these tools will be used for art and music. A mediocre drawing by a real person still conveys something of that person. Quality aside, bot “art” is empty in a way human art cannot be, no matter how badly it’s done.

Matt Campbell

@david_chisnall @mcmullin That's not a win for the people, including merely mediocre people (which is the majority), who no longer have a job.

Go Up