Will AI bring more creativity and innovation than risks and danger? In considering this question, the affirmative side began by partially reshaping the question. As I was the first person to voice my opinion, I will begin by the way I reframed the question. I conceded that AI does not currently prevent much creativity or […]
Continue reading →It is important to acknowledge that creativity and innovation are closely interlinked with risks and dangers. Each instance of innovation or creative breakthrough inherently carries a certain degree of risk and potential dangers. Essentially, the discussion of “AI Will Bring More Creativity and Innovation than Risks and Dangers” revolves around weighing the benefits of creativity […]
Continue reading →Last week, our class hosted its second debate, focusing on the topic, “AI will bring more creativity and innovation than risks and dangers.” This report aims to first provide a summary of the debate, followed by my personal reflections and stance on both the debate and the subject matter. The affirmative team, in their opening […]
Continue reading →When I was in grade school, a requirement for admission into the “gifted and talented” programs was the ability to “think outside the box.” In classes, students learn about prized poems and paintings, musical geniuses, and brilliant scientists and philosophers. Outside of academic settings, creativity is valued professionally as well. The rise of the digital […]
Continue reading →Debate Two focused on the risks and dangers of the rise and popularity of artificial intelligence and of large language models, as well as the issues of creativity and innovation. This debate seemed to be less polarized than that of the first debate on the usage of AI in higher education. I concluded that both […]
Continue reading →Hello everyone, Time flies and we’re entering week 8! This week, we’ll focus primarily on exploring the social and ethical questions of LLMs. The diversity and complexity of these issues are well-reflected in our second debate and our readings for the week. As outlined in the syllabus, I recommend starting with a quick review […]
Continue reading →Similar to how I appreciate Prof. Goldsmith’s work, I really appreciate lectures like this by Prof. Andrew Abbott that draws on the historical and social tendency of knowledge, knowing, academic and scholarly affairs that spans over a long time. (It must require years of experience and comprehensive knowledge to be able to give a talk […]
Continue reading →I am fascinated with Yang et al.’s paper on the potential of LMMs and the variety of tasks they show promising potential in. Here are some of the questions I have: Regarding replicability and consistency: I wonder if the examples provided can be replicated with similar/identical prompts with reasonable variance. The example that GPT-4V can […]
Continue reading →In this week’s response I will focus on the TED talk given by OpenAI’s co-founder, Ted Brockmen. A few observations that I had: For the vast majority of people, the most direct and intuitive way to showcase the potential of ChatGPT is still a simple live demo like the one Mr. Brockmen did; while to […]
Continue reading →I express my deepest appreciation and gratitude for Goldsmith and Laks to express their understanding (in a way, their philosophy of the history of cognitive science) on the role of history and the significance of studying it in approaching a discipline. It is such a good paragraph that I will copy it here: “One of […]
Continue reading →