[Ringz]

> Humans create new, spontaneous thoughts.

The compatibility of determinism and freedom of will is still controversially debated. There is a good chance that Humans don’t „create“.

> There’s no deliberation behind AI, just statistical probabilities. There’s no new or spontaneous thoughts, at most pseudorandomness introduced by the author of the model interface.

You can say exactly the same about deterministic humans since it is often argued that the randomness of thermodynamic or quantum mechanical processes is irrelevant to the question of whether free will is possible. This is justified by the fact that our concept of freedom means a decision that is self-determined by reasons and not a sequence of events determined by chance.

[eru]

> The compatibility of determinism and freedom of will is still controversially debated. There is a good chance that Humans don’t „create“.

Determinism and free will are pretty irrelevant here.

Unless P=NP, there's no way for us to distinguish in general between eg pseudo random systems and truly random systems from the outside.

Btw, I don't think determinism in humans/AI has anything to do with deliberation.

The newest AI models are allowed to deliberate. At least by some meanings of the word.

> This is justified by the fact that our concept of freedom means a decision that is self-determined by reasons and not a sequence of events determined by chance.

Well, different people have different definitions here. None of them very satisfying.

[Ringz]

> Determinism and free will are pretty irrelevant here.

No. It’s the other way around. Free will is the basic for „creating something new“.

> Btw, I don't think determinism in humans/AI has anything to do with deliberation.

With determinism there is no deliberation.

[eru]

> With determinism there is no deliberation.

As far as we can tell, all the laws of the universe are completely deterministic. (And that includes quantum mechanics.) As far as we can tell, human beings obey the laws of physics.

(To explain: quantum mechanics as a theory is completely deterministic and even linear. Some outdated interpretations of quantum mechanics, like Copenhagen, use randomisation. But interpretations don't make a difference to what the underlying theory actually is. And more widely accepted interpretations like 'Many Worlds' preserve the determinism of the underlying theory.)

Btw, neural nets are typically sampled from, and you can use as good a random number generator (even a physical random number generator) as there is, if you want to. I don't think it'll change what we think neural nets are capable of.

[vidarh]

That's exactly their point (and mine), with respect to the person above arguing humans unlike AI can create "new things". For that distinction to make sense "new things" must be interpreted as "something that can't be deterministically derived from the current world state", as they're trying to create a distinction between a purely deterministic algorithm and human consciousness.