this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2026
449 points (99.3% liked)

World News

53749 readers
2300 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

If we increase an LLM’s predictive utility it becomes less interesting, but if we make it more interesting it becomes nonsensical (since it can less accurately predict typical human outputs).

Humans, however, can be interesting without resorting to randomness, because they have subjectivity, which grants them a unique perspective that artists simply attempt (and often fail) to capture.

Anyways, however we eventually create an artificial mind, it will not be with a large language model; by now, that much is certain.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ah, but if there's no random element to a human cognition, it should produce the exact same output time and time again. What is not random is deterministic.

Biologically, there's an element of randomness to neurons firing. If they fire too randomly, that's a seizure. If they don't ever fire spontaneously, you're in a coma. How they produce ideas is nowhere close to being understood, but there's going to be an element of an ordered pattern of firing spontaneously emerging. You can see a bit of that with imaging, even.

Anyways, however we eventually create an artificial mind, it will not be with a large language model; by now, that much is certain.

It does seem to be dead-ending as a technology, although the definition of "mind" is, as ever, very slippery.

The big AI/AGI research trend is "neuro-symbolic reasoning", which is a fancy way of saying embedding a neural net deep in a normal algorithm that can be usefully controlled.

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

if there's no random element to human cognition

I didn’t say there’s no randomness in human cognition. I said that the originality of human ideas is not a matter of randomized thinking.

Randomness is everywhere. But it’s not the “randomness” of an artist’s thought process that accounts for the originality of their creative output (and is detrimental to it).

For LLMs, the opposite is true.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Actually, it seems pretty likely randomness is a central part of a human coming up with an idea.

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Consider the following question: “why did you write something sad?”

  • for an LLM, the answer is that a mathematical formula came up heads.
  • for a person, the answer is “I was sad.”

Maybe the sadness is random. (That’s depression for you.) But it doesn’t change the fact that the subjective nature of sadness fuels creative decisions. It is why characters in a novel do so and so, and why their feelings are described in a way that is original and yet eerily familiar — i.e., creatively.

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

randomness is a central part of a human coming up with an idea.

So, here’s how I understand this claim. Either

  1. As an endorsement of the Copenhagen Interpretation about the ubiquity of randomness at the quantum level. Or
  2. As a rejection of subjectivity (à la eliminative materialism), which reduces thoughts, emotions, and consciousness to facts about neural activation vectors.

(1) means randomness is background noise cancelled out at scale. We would still ask why some people are more creative than others, (or why some planets are redshifted compared to others) and presumably we have more to say than “luck,” since the chances that Shakespeare wrote his plays at random is 0.

Interpretation (2) suggests that creativity doesn’t exist and this whole conversation is senseless.