3 ms·
You guide your computer, interact with it and are involved in the process, no? The camera maker is not, and I think that is what makes the distinction here. If
by monkeybutton 5y ago
You guide your computer, interact with it and are involved in the process, no? The camera maker is not, and I think that is what makes the distinction here. If a true AGI woke up one day, decided to study medicine and created a break through all on its own then yes, it deserves the credit. But if an AI is being trained, tested, guided, fixed, debugged, re-written, tuned and fixed again until good results are found, the people doing that work deserve the credit. They are the ones who "know" what they are doing, not the AI.
- dahart 5y agoYeah exactly, but in fairness I think it can sometimes be legitimately difficult to know who's doing the work. Sometimes the tool maker's contribution really does setup an environment where the next step is inevitable. Scientists have always known that the context of their work - their peers' publications - provide the springboard to 'ask the right question'. Our tendency to anthropomorphize computers certainly contributes to getting confused about who did the work and who deserves credit, but humans have always had a hard time giving credit where credit is due when multiple people are involved, even outside of cases where contributors are excluded or snubbed. We humans tend to like clean simple narratives about breakthrough geniuses. We don't as much like listening to or trying to explain long histories of incremental improvements by many that culminate in a big change.