Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39760791

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38587475

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Edit: Looking at the comment history this is a spam account that constantly posts random snippets from the articles without any other indication.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38140212

Points: 66

# Comments: 33

I'm not sure whether that's really all that different. Weights in the neural network are created by "experiencing an environment" (the text of the internet) as well. It is true that there is no try and error.

> We are not limited to text input: we have 5+ senses.

GPT-4 does accept images as input. Whisper can turn speech into text. This seems like something where the models are already catching up. They (might)for now internally translate everything into text, but that doesn't really seem like a fundamental difference to me.

> We can output a lot more than words: we can output turning a screw, throwing a punch, walking, crying, singing, and more. Also, the words we do utter, we can utter them with lots of additional meaning coming from the tone of voice and body language.

AI models do already output movement (Boston dynamics, self driving cars), write songs, convert text to speech, insert emojis into conversation. Granted, these are not the same model but glueing things together at some point seems feasible to me as a layperson.

> We have innate curiosity, survival instincts and social instincts which, like our pain and pleasure, are driven by gene survival.

That seems like one of the easier problems to solve for an LLM – and in a way you might argue it is already solved – just hardcode some things in there (for the LLM at the moment those are the ethical boundaries for example).

Now secondly, obviously the premise is also completely untrue and almost impossible to achieve: The artist did have something in mind when painting these pictures: to paint pictures where only the viewer is meant to decipher the meaning while the artist themself has nothing in mind. He or she also did paint something aesthetically pleasing so there seems to be a lot of intention on that part as well. Painting something without any intention at all seems almost completely impossible to me. (Maybe you could trick somebody else into painting something without them knowing about it – but even then you are still the artist with an intention).

Finally I wanted to address the criticism by some other comments that art critique and galleries are always looking for an artistic intention even if there is none. I don't think that's completely true – I have seen plenty of exhibitions where it is explained that the artist "was just experimenting with form/colors".

I'm actually not sure whether I fully agree, I think that knowledge can also be a goal in and of itself sometimes.

Also, as a native German speaker, saying "Ich bin ein Berliner" is not unusual if you are talking about being a citizen of Berlin.

I don't think that was a common association at the time as well. Especially since (pastry) "Berliners" are not called "Berliners" in Berlin but "Pfannkuchen" instead.