Church turing paradox but in comments ~ ;p - to elaborate One take is that it’s bollocks- a mechanistic measure for a mechanism to “win” at has nothing to do

Church turing paradox but in comments ~ ;p - to elaborate One take is that it’s bollocks- a mechanistic measure for a mechanism to “win” at has nothing to do with human creativity. One would argue that the arts should be taught with stem to help engineers interface with humanity- especially the indefinables. Another take is to ask what it is the machine isnt quite doing. As i believe its been said before “tell me exactly what the program can’t do and i will make it do exactly that”. But where does it end? To satisfy the argument we will need to define creativity, humanity, arts, not to mention bicker on the semantics of building the necessary shared ontology! The synthesist in me thinks the next Shakespeare surely could benefit from n+1 “monkeys and typewriters”