Maybe! But I think the suckiness of it all being average (to me, at least) is 10% that it’s average and 90% that it’s arbitrary and not well selected. Making it more random would fix the 10% but make the 90% even more obnoxious. To me the pidgeon story is a good example. I certainly couldn’t predict where it was going! But none of it added up to anything.
That’s true, it can’t be as simple as making the generation more random (increasing the temperature or something). For example, a human can choose to write something highly ordered but interpreting the prompt in a creative way—an overall boost in randomness won’t do that. So the thing I’m suggesting is probably really difficult.
There’s another thing I wanted to note. Many people are sharing their AI creations and don’t notice how they come across to others. My hypothesis is that people put a little bit of creativity into the prompt, get a result with exactly that much creativity, and happily click the share button. Work done! But if they’d tried to make the same content by hand, they’d realize that it requires a huge amount of creativity in the details, much more than they’d imagined when writing the prompt. And other people pick up on that (going back to my first comment), they sense whether the work was made with 100% creativity, or 1% creativity and 99% averaging.
Yeah, I worry about that in this case (that I’m just positively biased as the prompter), and am heartened that at least some commenters (though I respect your opinion, too) have agreed that the new one is… okay? Decent? “Would make you sigh in relief if your random high school buddy shared it and wanted your thoughts” level? To me it feels meaningfully different, though I can totally see how it wouldn’t to others. And I wouldn’t want to read it for even 20 minutes, much less all day. But the previous generation of outputs made me angry almost immediately, so, hey, big step up.
Maybe! But I think the suckiness of it all being average (to me, at least) is 10% that it’s average and 90% that it’s arbitrary and not well selected. Making it more random would fix the 10% but make the 90% even more obnoxious. To me the pidgeon story is a good example. I certainly couldn’t predict where it was going! But none of it added up to anything.
That’s true, it can’t be as simple as making the generation more random (increasing the temperature or something). For example, a human can choose to write something highly ordered but interpreting the prompt in a creative way—an overall boost in randomness won’t do that. So the thing I’m suggesting is probably really difficult.
There’s another thing I wanted to note. Many people are sharing their AI creations and don’t notice how they come across to others. My hypothesis is that people put a little bit of creativity into the prompt, get a result with exactly that much creativity, and happily click the share button. Work done! But if they’d tried to make the same content by hand, they’d realize that it requires a huge amount of creativity in the details, much more than they’d imagined when writing the prompt. And other people pick up on that (going back to my first comment), they sense whether the work was made with 100% creativity, or 1% creativity and 99% averaging.
Yeah, I worry about that in this case (that I’m just positively biased as the prompter), and am heartened that at least some commenters (though I respect your opinion, too) have agreed that the new one is… okay? Decent? “Would make you sigh in relief if your random high school buddy shared it and wanted your thoughts” level? To me it feels meaningfully different, though I can totally see how it wouldn’t to others. And I wouldn’t want to read it for even 20 minutes, much less all day. But the previous generation of outputs made me angry almost immediately, so, hey, big step up.