Re: A mathematical ceiling limits generative AI to amateur-level creativity

Hi Milton,

Thanks for the pointer. It is indeed unsurprising that LLMs are limited to what’s likely based upon their training data. That just begs the question of what would be needed to match the creativity of professionals. I suspect that involves System 2 thinking focused on criteria other than likelihood, i.e. ideas that are novel and unexpected, yet effective in the context under consideration.  Could a human guide an LLM Agent in this way? Or perhaps one agent could guide another in a meta reasoning process. I also wonder how well LLM Agents understand human feelings, given their lack of direct experience.  Humans broaden their understanding by reading novels, watching plays, or even banal tv soaps. You ask yourself what would you feel if you were in the position outlined by the script writer, who are often people that are acute observers of the human condition.

Would it be immoral to develop AI agents that feel like us, or would it make them more useful to us?

Best regards,
   Dave

> On 26 Nov 2025, at 15:39, Milton Ponson <rwiciamsd@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> https://www.psypost.org/a-mathematical-ceiling-limits-generative-ai-to-amateur-level-creativity/

Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>