4 ms·

Maybe, in my rosy colored view and after some really serious growing pains, widespread AI would finally allow humans to pursue art and knowledge without worryin

Maybe, in my rosy colored view and after some really serious growing pains, widespread AI would finally allow humans to pursue art and knowledge without worrying about the basics.

civilian 10y ago
I think it would just be hard to justify pursuing knowledge and art when the AI will also do that better than you, in it's spare cycles. I agree that there is a timeless quality to learning sports or arts that are obsolete, but at some point... it might be kind of depressing.
- zardo 10y ago
  No more depressing than learning how to do just about anything, knowing that you are never going to be world class at it.
- davesque 10y ago
  That sort of assumes that the point of doing either of those things is to be better than everyone else. I personally find the activities alone to be worthwhile. Besides, the reality of superior ability wouldn't be anything new. For everyone of my abilities, it seems incredibly likely that there exists another human somewhere that might be considered "better" than me.
  - civilian 10y ago
    So, with art, I can acknowledge that the point isn't to be better. But what about collecting knowledge? Sure, you could help analyzing the genome & biology of a rare butterfly with all your free time. Say, maybe it would takes computer-assisted humans several years. But the AI could finish it in a month! Wouldn't you feel silly about that?
arethuza 10y ago
That's pretty much the AI best case scenario portrayed in the Culture novels by Iain M. Banks: Investing all power in his individualistic, sometime eccentric, but always benign, A.I. Minds, Banks knew what he was doing; this is the only way a liberal anarchy could be achieved, by taking what is best in humans and placing it beyond corruption, which means out of human control. The danger involved in this imaginative step, though, is clear; one of the problems with the Culture novels as novels is that the central characters, the Minds, are too powerful and, to put it bluntly, too good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture Edit: I also liked the reply when Banks was asked about the great Minds of the Culture "... Is this what gods would actually be like?" to which we replied "If we're lucky".

Maybe, in my rosy colored view and after some really serious growing pains, widespread AI would finally allow humans to pursue art and knowledge without worrying about the basics.

civilian 10y ago

I think it would just be hard to justify pursuing knowledge and art when the AI will also do that better than you, in it's spare cycles. I agree that there is a timeless quality to learning sports or arts that are obsolete, but at some point... it might be kind of depressing.

zardo 10y ago
No more depressing than learning how to do just about anything, knowing that you are never going to be world class at it.
davesque 10y ago
That sort of assumes that the point of doing either of those things is to be better than everyone else. I personally find the activities alone to be worthwhile. Besides, the reality of superior ability wouldn't be anything new. For everyone of my abilities, it seems incredibly likely that there exists another human somewhere that might be considered "better" than me.
- civilian 10y ago
  So, with art, I can acknowledge that the point isn't to be better. But what about collecting knowledge? Sure, you could help analyzing the genome & biology of a rare butterfly with all your free time. Say, maybe it would takes computer-assisted humans several years. But the AI could finish it in a month! Wouldn't you feel silly about that?

arethuza 10y ago

That's pretty much the AI best case scenario portrayed in the Culture novels by Iain M. Banks: Investing all power in his individualistic, sometime eccentric, but always benign, A.I. Minds, Banks knew what he was doing; this is the only way a liberal anarchy could be achieved, by taking what is best in humans and placing it beyond corruption, which means out of human control. The danger involved in this imaginative step, though, is clear; one of the problems with the Culture novels as novels is that the central characters, the Minds, are too powerful and, to put it bluntly, too good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture Edit: I also liked the reply when Banks was asked about the great Minds of the Culture "... Is this what gods would actually be like?" to which we replied "If we're lucky".