Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

audioen t1_jc9mq5x wrote

I am not so negative. Sure, it is something like statistical plagiarism. On the other hand, I have seen it perform clever word-plays that I do not think exist in its training material. After it generalizes from many examples, it displays fluidity in association and capabilities that are quite remarkable for what it is.

Much of what we do today involves working on a computer, consuming digital media and producing digital output. I am going to just claim that all of that is amenable to AI. We were all completely wrong in predicting what programs could do -- it turns out that the most important thing is simply affordance. If it is data that computer can read, then it can do something with it.

Much of what we think that is intelligence appears to be barely better than that plagiarism that you decry. I mean, work we do is typically just about doing repetitive tasks every day which are similar to what you did before, and applying known formulas you have been taught or learnt by experience to new problems. I am afraid that human creativity will not turn out to be all that different form machine creativity.