3 ms·
Nope, we parrot mostly, but not always. When we do not, we create something new, and then we started parroting again. Mostly. The question is, can ai do someth
by testrun 4y ago
Nope, we parrot mostly, but not always. When we do not, we create something new, and then we started parroting again. Mostly.
The question is, can ai do something new, understand context of the new thing, understand when and where it will be usable and when it make sense to apply it.
- marviel 4y agoWhen we're creating something "new" -- are you positing that it isn't built on top of other ideas, being combined in new ways?
- testrun 4y agoNew can be 1. something without a predecessor, 2. synthesis of other ideas that creates totally new application or theory
- marviel 4y agoCan you provide an example of 1? I think there are definitely some out there that feel almost "singular" in the way you describe, but each time I try to find a non-predecessor item I end up feeling "nope there are still dependencies"
- testrun 4y agoRelativity for instance. New does not exclude dependencies or partial predecessors. New is something that is totally different from before.
- vidarh 4y agoRelativity comes from exploring the problem of the incompatibilities of pre-existing theories and experiments. I don't see anything that suggests it requires anything more than synthesis and a stochastic process to explore the gaps and inconsistencies. In terms of timing, they're the culmination of decades of pre-existing work, with e.g. the Lorentz transformations named the same year Einstein published his paper on special relativity.
- testrun 4y agoLorentz transformation is not relativity. I think we might have a problem with definition and understanding what we try to accomplish with this discussion. If I understand you correctly, then stochastic processes will create an all knowing environment if you give it enough time. I think that is false. Most of the time it is true, but there are points in time where there is a leap in knowledge that are not reachable by just iteration.
- vidarh 4y ago> Lorentz transformation is not relativity. Not the point. The point being that there was a number of precursors, not some sudden insight from nothing. > If I understand you correctly, then stochastic processes will create an all knowing environment if you give it enough time. I think that is false. Most of the time it is true, but there are points in time where there is a leap in knowledge that are not reachable by just iteration. This presumes that there's no element of randomness in that stochastic process, which is not a sound assumption.
- vidarh 4y agoIs something new that isn't a synthesis of past things not just a stochastic process? Human inventiveness seems to heavily follow a pattern of relatively minor iterations of what came before, extraordinarily rarely something that even seems to defy the past and be truly different and independent.
- testrun 4y agoDemocracy, nuclear power, calculus, dna helix, x-ray, written word, relativity comes to mind for starters. There are millions others.
- vidarh 4y agoCare to elaborate how any of those involved humans inventing something that wasn't a combination of synthesis with a stochastic process filling in the gaps? E.g the discovery of x-rays took over a century of applying small iterations to established processes to accumulate data. There was no big, sudden leap of insight there.