28 ms·
Even if we claim that "real AI" is a system that can actively perform at human levels in creative tasks, I wouldn't believe that it will always be in the future
by eggie 9y ago
Even if we claim that "real AI" is a system that can actively perform at human levels in creative tasks, I wouldn't believe that it will always be in the future. However, I don't think this is very near, and I think this is sort of what people are implying when they talk about AI. To me saying "general AI is what we're exploring and making mini-discoveries in" is a kind of apology. Unfortunately, this apology pushes us into a grey area where "AI" is really just the scientific artifice. That's not the same as AI that has auto-creative capacities.
- garmaine 9y agoWhat sort of creative task? Music composition? Graphic design? Surrealistic modern art? AIs have been programmed to do all these things and be indistinguishable from human creativity in blind studies. I have no doubt through that you'll be able to come up with a reason why each of these examples isn't what you really meant by "human level in creative tasks." Which is rather the point.
- sli 9y agoHow specific are they to those tasks, is what I'm curious about. Can the surrealist bot produce musical compositions as well as the musical composition bot? The generality angle would say that one bot can do all of those things mostly or entirely on its own (i.e. trains itself as well, and was not necessarily "told" to train in that area), not multiple discrete bots that are all heavily trained by a human. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to argue with you in the sense that you convey in that second part of your comment, I just enjoy supposing about this particular subject.