Yeah, that one could benefit from some AI. No, wait, it's doing it on purpose...
I think it's a valid fear that AI will be creating all the music, art, engineering and any other creative work. Humans will be left doing any manual labour that still exists.I thought AI and robots were supposed to do the cleaning and the dishes to free up time for me to be creative, instead it looks like AI will be doing the creative work and I'll be doing the cleaning and the dishes.
We shouldn't judge others by our own standards...We truly don't want true A.I as in the end it would either kill or enslave us all.
This is not a valid argument. Evolution also doesn't understand, how creativity works, but has still developed creative beings. Also, we do not understand, how to build a human being, but still we produce new human beings every day.AI will never ever do serious creative work -- because we, humans won't even understand how creativity works... ...hence we cannot develop an algorithm to do so.
Yes, but how much time did it take for this to work? That's how evolution succeeded.This is not a valid argument. Evolution also doesn't understand, how creativity works, but has still developed creative beings. Also, we do not understand, how to build a human being, but still we produce new human beings every day.
I used evolution as a counterexample against the claim, that we cannot develop things, which we do not understand. I didn't say, that this is the only way to do it.Yes, but how much time did it take for this to work? That's how evolution succeeded.
Not standards just logic and a whole lot of Fiction novels.We shouldn't judge others by our own standards...
@duerer said we can't make something complex without understanding. You said it was possible: evolution created us and allowed us to make something without understanding. I'm just saying it had a tremendous cost, so I think it's not practical and duerer's argument is valid.I used evolution as a counterexample against the claim, that we cannot develop things, which we do not understand. I didn't say, that this is the only way to do it.
I agree it's hard for someone to explain where the ideas are coming from, since it's taken in large part from our past experience. But it's also very hard for anyone else to have exactly the same ideas, which only confirms it's hard to replicate something complex without understanding.Creativity itself is another good example: many creative people cannot explain, how they get their ideas. Often they don't even understand their own ideas. But still, they have them.
I've never heard we wouldn't be able to create a chess program that could beat everyone. Quite the opposite: predictions have often been too optimistic about it (like those who bet against David Levy). The algorithms used in many good chess programs are based on the understanding of the game and the techniques used by grand masters, plus a solid dose of brute force to compensate the lack of a neural network to recognize and generalize patterns. Now, top commercial engines like Stockfish, Fritz, and Alphazero are using a neural network, mimicking the humans even further. So we fully understand how it works, actually.Edit: Before we had chess programs, which play better then the best humans, a similar argument was used: We will never be able, to create a chess program that plays better than the best humans. All these "philosophical" arguments, why true A.I. or artificial creativity cannot be possible for some "principal" reason, are invalid.