I like to think of myself as a creative, and have often used AI when changing the tone in my writing or when I need help brainstorming and processing my thoughts. In this sense, AI has been a nothing short of amazing for me. While I value the creativity that my mind and imagination can conjure up, I am also appreciative of the ability that AI has to enhance my creativity by driving me to think of new perspectives and ideas.
One more thing: as a technologist and a photographer (creative), I disagree with the statement "it is fundamentally a sophisticated aggregation tool." I think it is too early to know what AI truly is from a creative perspective. I say this because years ago, traditional artists would say things like "digital art is not real art," or photographers would say any using the computer to touch up a photo is artificial. But you can't tell me that today as a photographer, and just try telling all the graphic and digital artists that their work is not art. Just a thought.:-) thanks again for engagement
I think there may be a misunderstanding on both parts. I used what I said because the article was about GenAI, not just LLMs. Although it is your opinion, saying "It is fundamentally a sophisticated aggregation tool" is not the same thing as explaining how the technology works. When you say "aggregation tool," it normally refers to software or systems designed to collect and compile data from multiple sources into a single, unified view or dataset. In contrast, LLMs create new text based on the patterns and context learned from their training data. LLMs can do predictive modeling and also learn and adapt to your context, which is far different from what a "sophisticated aggregation tool" can do. The word "aggregation" is not the same as "training data." I think that could be part of why creatives would have a issue, they think it is aggregation of their work vs understanding how the technology actually work by studying and learning and creating something new which is not unlike what humans in creative fields are taught.
Thanks for your response, and you're absolutely right – they are completely different career choices and the skill it takes to be artist are definitely not the same as the jobs I mentioned nonetheless is still a skilled that can be learned.
I like to think of myself as a creative, and have often used AI when changing the tone in my writing or when I need help brainstorming and processing my thoughts. In this sense, AI has been a nothing short of amazing for me. While I value the creativity that my mind and imagination can conjure up, I am also appreciative of the ability that AI has to enhance my creativity by driving me to think of new perspectives and ideas.
One more thing: as a technologist and a photographer (creative), I disagree with the statement "it is fundamentally a sophisticated aggregation tool." I think it is too early to know what AI truly is from a creative perspective. I say this because years ago, traditional artists would say things like "digital art is not real art," or photographers would say any using the computer to touch up a photo is artificial. But you can't tell me that today as a photographer, and just try telling all the graphic and digital artists that their work is not art. Just a thought.:-) thanks again for engagement
I think there may be a misunderstanding on both parts. I used what I said because the article was about GenAI, not just LLMs. Although it is your opinion, saying "It is fundamentally a sophisticated aggregation tool" is not the same thing as explaining how the technology works. When you say "aggregation tool," it normally refers to software or systems designed to collect and compile data from multiple sources into a single, unified view or dataset. In contrast, LLMs create new text based on the patterns and context learned from their training data. LLMs can do predictive modeling and also learn and adapt to your context, which is far different from what a "sophisticated aggregation tool" can do. The word "aggregation" is not the same as "training data." I think that could be part of why creatives would have a issue, they think it is aggregation of their work vs understanding how the technology actually work by studying and learning and creating something new which is not unlike what humans in creative fields are taught.
Thanks for your response, and you're absolutely right – they are completely different career choices and the skill it takes to be artist are definitely not the same as the jobs I mentioned nonetheless is still a skilled that can be learned.