[renerick]

This is completely absurd and reductive point of view, which I always assume is a cop out. Just because it's called "machine learning" doesn't mean it actually has anything to do with how human learning or human brain works, and it's certainly not "exactly how" or "very same". There's much more going on on in human creative process, aside from mere "mixing": personal experience, understanding of the creative process, technique and style development, subtext, hidden ideas and nuances, etc. Computers are very good at mixing and combining, but this is not even close to what goes into actual creative process. I hate this argument

[jryle70]

> personal experience, understanding of the creative process, technique and style development, subtext, hidden ideas and nuances

All of these are just human being exposed more to life and learning new skills, in other words -- having more data. LLM already learns those skills and encounters endless experience of people in its training data.

> I hate this argument

That's very subjective. You don't know how the brain works.

[hollowturtle]

You seem to not fully understand the quote. LLMs learn patterns/noises from an existing output, these are not skills nor endless experience learned. It's like saying you learn how to make a cake by learning how it should look like not how it's composed. LLMs mock the studio ghibli style images, didn't invent the style or learned the endless experience the studio accumulated over the years. In fact it's a mocking of the images and it just looks horrible

[renerick]

It's not just more data, it's deeper understanding of the fundamentals, of the idea and of the tools used, as well as the process of creation itself. It's what makes studying art interesting: why did author chose to do this and that, what's their style, what was the process, etc. For LLM the answers will universally be "because it was in the prompt and there was appropriate training data" and "the author prompted the model until the model returned something tolerable". You may argue that not all art has or needs depth, or that not all people are interested in it, but that doesn't mean that we should fill our cultures with empty boring slop.

> That's very subjective

I was expressing my opinion of this argument which absolutely is subjective

> You don't know how the brain works.

Neither does grandparent comment's author, didn't stop them from making much bolder claims.