Re: Chat_GPT4 scores in the 1% of a creativity score test v 24 undergraduates
On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 7:49 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > https://fortune.com/2023/08/25/a-i-creativity-test-score-humans/ > Thanks for posting this Spud. Interesting article, although I'm sure some people will claim that the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking must be broken because AIs can now do so well on it, just as some foolish people already say the Turing Test must be broken because computers can now pass it so easily. But if a test tells you something you don't want to hear that doesn't necessarily mean the test is broken. But I think this does tell you something that is undeniably true, it tells you that the Singularity is much nearer than anyone, including me, would've expected one year ago. But that's exactly what you'd expect to happen in the run up to the Singularity because the unexpected is what a singularity is all about. It's especially relevant because: *"All of the results were evaluated by trained reviewers at Scholastic Testing Service, a private testing company that provides scoring for the TTCT. They didn’t know in advance that some of the tests they’d be scoring had been completed by AI. **Since Scholastic Testing Service is a private company, it does not share its prompts with the public. This ensured that GPT-4 would not have been able to scrape the internet for past prompts and their responses."* And yet: *"GPT-4 scored in the top 1% of test-takers for the originality of its ideas. From our research, we believe this marks one of the first examples of AI meeting or exceeding the human ability for original thinking."* John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> *tsp* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv14p74UxYx3P81%3DRs4gPU9yFpZ5y0wGMkD8hTw%3DGdQLxw%40mail.gmail.com.
Chat_GPT4 scores in the 1% of a creativity score test v 24 undergraduates
https://fortune.com/2023/08/25/a-i-creativity-test-score-humans/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1777574485.631819.1693180195781%40mail.yahoo.com.
Re: Creativity
Why shouldn't they? JM On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: John, Your model may explain why some drugs improve creativity. Richard On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:52 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: On 09/10/2012, at 8:39 AM, Russell Standish wrote: The problem that exercises me (when I get a chance to exercise it) is that of creativity. David Deutsch correctly identifies that this is one of the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative process, one for which epistemology apparently has no role at all. Continuous, open-ended creativity in evolution is considered the main problem in Artificial Life (and perhaps other fields). Solving it may be the work of a single moment of inspiration (I wish), but more likely it will involve incremental advances in topics such as information, complexity, emergence and other such partly philosophical topics before we even understand what it means for something to be open-ended creative. Popperian epistemology, to the extent it has a role, will come much further down the track. Cheers... JM: Not that I want to produce such 'single moment of inspiration': I gave some thought to the concept of creativity over the past 20 years. At this moment I stand (and my stance is likely to undergo further changes) with including Robert Rosen's anticipation concept as applied to my own world-view (belief!) of agnosticism: there is an infinite complexity we cannot know, not even approach and from it we get info-morsels from time to time into OUR world. We are not up to consider those 'morsels' by their real and full nature, only adjusted to our mental capabilities and the so far circumscribed 'world' we live in(?). This constitutes our 'image' of our world - indeed the model of it we can muster in our actual mental inventory (including the application of conventional sciences.). Our curiosity in topics MAY (or may not?) trigger topical info and it is up to us whether we do, or don't pay attention and - maybe - consider them as worthwhile pursuing - which is the way I figure anticipation. If we relate to such anticipation with a positive feedback, we may fail, or succeed, the latter callable the 'creative approach. It goes beyond our 'model', beyond what we could feed into our computers, beyond the inventory (status quo ante?) of what we already knew (I say: yesterday). No consequences drawn. John M -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Creativity
On 09/10/2012, at 8:39 AM, Russell Standish wrote: The problem that exercises me (when I get a chance to exercise it) is that of creativity. David Deutsch correctly identifies that this is one of the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative process, one for which epistemology apparently has no role at all. Continuous, open-ended creativity in evolution is considered the main problem in Artificial Life (and perhaps other fields). Solving it may be the work of a single moment of inspiration (I wish), but more likely it will involve incremental advances in topics such as information, complexity, emergence and other such partly philosophical topics before we even understand what it means for something to be open-ended creative. Popperian epistemology, to the extent it has a role, will come much further down the track. Cheers... JM: Not that I want to produce such 'single moment of inspiration': I gave some thought to the concept of creativity over the past 20 years. At this moment I stand (and my stance is likely to undergo further changes) with including Robert Rosen's anticipation concept as applied to my own world-view (belief!) of *agnosticism*: there is an infinite complexity we cannot know, not even approach and from it we get info-morsels from time to time into OUR world. We are not up to consider those 'morsels' by their real and full nature, only adjusted to our mental capabilities and the so far circumscribed 'world' we live in(?). This constitutes our 'image' of our world - indeed the model of it we can muster in our actual mental inventory (including the application of conventional sciences.). Our curiosity in topics MAY (or may not?) trigger topical info and it is up to us whether we do, or don't pay attention and - maybe - consider them as worthwhile pursuing - which is the way I figure *anticipation. * If we relate to such anticipation with a positive feedback, we may fail, or succeed, the latter callable the 'creative approach. It goes beyond our 'model', beyond what we could feed into our computers, beyond the inventory (status quo ante?) of what we already knew (I say: yesterday). No consequences drawn. John M -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Creativity
John, Your model may explain why some drugs improve creativity. Richard On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:52 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: On 09/10/2012, at 8:39 AM, Russell Standish wrote: The problem that exercises me (when I get a chance to exercise it) is that of creativity. David Deutsch correctly identifies that this is one of the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative process, one for which epistemology apparently has no role at all. Continuous, open-ended creativity in evolution is considered the main problem in Artificial Life (and perhaps other fields). Solving it may be the work of a single moment of inspiration (I wish), but more likely it will involve incremental advances in topics such as information, complexity, emergence and other such partly philosophical topics before we even understand what it means for something to be open-ended creative. Popperian epistemology, to the extent it has a role, will come much further down the track. Cheers... JM: Not that I want to produce such 'single moment of inspiration': I gave some thought to the concept of creativity over the past 20 years. At this moment I stand (and my stance is likely to undergo further changes) with including Robert Rosen's anticipation concept as applied to my own world-view (belief!) of agnosticism: there is an infinite complexity we cannot know, not even approach and from it we get info-morsels from time to time into OUR world. We are not up to consider those 'morsels' by their real and full nature, only adjusted to our mental capabilities and the so far circumscribed 'world' we live in(?). This constitutes our 'image' of our world - indeed the model of it we can muster in our actual mental inventory (including the application of conventional sciences.). Our curiosity in topics MAY (or may not?) trigger topical info and it is up to us whether we do, or don't pay attention and - maybe - consider them as worthwhile pursuing - which is the way I figure anticipation. If we relate to such anticipation with a positive feedback, we may fail, or succeed, the latter callable the 'creative approach. It goes beyond our 'model', beyond what we could feed into our computers, beyond the inventory (status quo ante?) of what we already knew (I say: yesterday). No consequences drawn. John M -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
