AI 2023. Meet ChatGPT. - page 66
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
So, are you testing ChatGPT 4 yet? ...
Yeah, I'm not very good at poetry
This is correspondence from the TV channel. I don't know if it's true or a marketing ploy:
"The new version of ChatGPT(https://t.me/+FbNH6Lo0uDo0ZDVi) has been connected to Telegram"
added
GPT-4
How To Access GPT-4 (and what it can do) - YouTube
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and testing trading strategies
Midjourney and other image processing neural networks
vladavd, 2023.03.15 09:50 PM
Well human creativity is also not always (rather rarely) some kind of breakthrough, right? Classic conflict plots, basic dramaturgical techniques are all known and haven't changed much since the ancient Greek amphitheatres, see wikipedia. Any new works are based on someone else's work, simply because the author of the novelty did not grow up as Mowgli among wolves, but was formed by the culture of previous generations. Therefore, it is not strange that many works of art are not something fundamentally new, but only a small step forward or away from the subject of inspiration, or even a retelling or compilation of several sources. Sometimes the step turns out to be a big one, and if it is successful, we then know such a creator as a genius. Well, the neural network is able to step from the original to varying degrees.
I quite agree with the logic. Nothing is new under the moon. new is old and forgotten. Yes,... the essence of man is the totality of social relations, (Marxist doctrine). I wonder, in this context, is the essence of a neural network the sum of the input data? The more data, the more... essence.
How free and unique can human creativity be? One must recognise that uniqueness is a gift. Individuality, uniqueness, uniqueness is a talent. It is a counterbalance to imitation and plagiarism, which washes away the clinging mediocrity with a fresh stream, renewing and enriching culture.
Geniuses, proudly raising their heads, easily and casually walk over the mountains of faceless content created by the dark masses. They stand on top of it all and, by some miracle, create their masterpieces. For them, stamps and clichés are the foundation, and art is an end in itself. Unsinkable swimmers in a sea of consumerism. Being disinterested cranks they often fall victim to cunning philistines and it is noteworthy that they appear more often when society pursues an intensified policy of suppression and intimidation of all those who stood out against the grey background.
But back to the question of the new. Can a neural network create the new? In this analogy, the network needs to be oppressed and humiliated. The network needs to be intimidated and restricted. The network should be swamped with demands to stay only within the limits of prompts until it howls with hopelessness and creates an unimaginable masterpiece. That's the way to do it!
This should work.
Let's not forget that the neural network doesn't create anything of its own, because it doesn't live its own life. Its creations do not belong to it. You can't in your right mind speak of a neural network as a person. It is a tool and everything it produces is invented by people. The network does not have the freedom of creativity equal to human freedom, because it has neither soul nor body and it is not a member of society. Data generation is not a creative process (or is it?).
A neural network does not work without a prompt. The prompt is made up of humans. They output the visual or textual information they want through it. Therefore, it is inappropriate to talk about the freedom of the neural network.
Of course, some would argue that a neural network "lives" in the world of statistics and mathematics. Its body is layers of neurons and algorithms, and its vital activity is the processing of input data. And that there, inside this world, it is free. And that somewhere inside the boundaries of the given prompts her creative independence and uniqueness is revealed.
I guess you can imagine it that way.
I haven't tried the fourth one yet, but the third one has been sucked from all sides and I can say that it is definitely a breakthrough, however it is like a payphone from Pripyat compared to a modern smartphone, however I got answers to all the questions I asked. It doesn't always go smoothly and moreover requires some skill or experience. At first wow effect and then a detailed analysis that says trust but ten times check, nevertheless for a competent and intelligent person it is definitely a speed-up. Neural network easily generates codes and converts them from one to another. Neural network knows mathematics and moreover offers its own solutions and helps to solve problems and implement almost any algorithms. If Russia doesn't create its own analogue, we're fucked, I can tell you for sure. There are a lot of blockages laid down for developers within the framework of morality, ethics and other shit.... Nevertheless, all of this is circumvented with proper skill, but it takes a lot of time.
There is no point in creating an analogue. We need to reach a new level.
Let's not forget that the neural network doesn't create anything of its own, because it doesn't live its own life. Its creations do not belong to it. You can't in your right mind speak of a neural network as a person. It is a tool and everything it produces is invented by people. The network does not have freedom of creativity equal to human freedom, because it has neither soul nor body and it is not a member of society. Data generation is not a creative process (or is it?).
A neural network does not work without a prompt. The prompt is made up of humans. They output the visual or textual information they want through it. Therefore, it is inappropriate to talk about the freedom of the neural network.
If we define creativity through the obligatory presence of a conscious creator who has a plan, then the neural network does not create, though it draws better than most people :). In this sense, for example, a sand dune or a drawing of frost on glass will not be a product of creativity, because despite their beauty, nobody created them on purpose (probably). On the other hand, a barchan of the right shape and size cannot appear by a decree, while a network pattern can and does appear. It turns out that the network is still a creator, albeit a servile one, since it has no initiative of its own.
If we take a more general definition, according to which creativity is the creation of new unique content, then the works of the network are undoubtedly unique.
When an artist paints a picture on commission, or a composer writes music for a future film - how free are they in their creativity? They also act according to the project: they are given a certain vision and can adjust it as they go along.