Technology

I’m really not, though I’ll readily admit I’m simplifying things. An LLM can only create something it’s been given. I guess it can generate a string of characters and assign a definition to it, but it’s not really intentional creation. There are many similarities between how a human generates something and how an LLM does, but to argue they’re the same radically oversimplifies how humans work. While we can program an LLM, we literally do not have the capability to replicate a human brain.

This is true of people as well, and I'd like to clarify I never said that it was the same as humans, but that it was minimally creative. It is a tool to be used by humans, they are in control of the input and the output. What we say goes, no one ever has to see LLM output without humans making those decisions.

For example, can you tell me what emotions the LLM had when it produced the output it did? Did its physical condition have any effect? What about its past, not just what it has learned but how it was treated? What is its motivation? A human response to anything involving creativity factors in many things that we aren’t even consciously aware of, and these are things an LLM doesn’t have.

This is a no true Scotsman. You're redefining creativity to exclude LLMs, without a clear or objective reason for why you need these things to be creative.

The study you’re citing is from Google, there’s likely some bias and selective reporting. That said, we were talking about creativity, not regurgitating facts or analyzing data. I think it’s universally accepted that as the tech gets better, it’s preferable to have a computer make the first attempt at a diagnosis, especially for a scan or large data analysis, then have a human confirm.

You're making an assumption and dismissing the study based on the source, rather than its merits, or having a closer look at their methods.