2 ms·

"but I believe the talking computers systems will write better software, so I can't be too sad, eh?" I hear you and actually agree that most coding will eventu

"but I believe the talking computers systems will write better software, so I can't be too sad, eh?" I hear you and actually agree that most coding will eventually be performed by AI. However, I'd bet against AI/ML ever being capable of original thought. One must first move past convention; something that is diametrically opposed to the current AI/ML approach. Time won't change this. A new paradigm might. Either way, the most powerful commodity (and scarcest resource) is and has always been... original thought.

carapace 4y ago
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "original" though, eh? Are you familiar with the "cut up" technique? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-up_technique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-up_technique It could be considered a mechanical original thought generator? From Information Theory we have the result that the unpredictability of a message is a measure of it's information content. Right now we are concentrating on making systems that generate predictable results (the novelty is not just that they can generate realistic "thought", but also that they can do it "to spec", which is another way of saying that we can predict some of the aspects of the output of the machines: it looks like they understand us and are providing salient responses. So it's not that computers can or cannot make original thought, it's that we have to decide what parts of the outputs are original: it's an observer-dependent variable, so to speak? What do you think?
- shanebellone 4y ago
  Fair play. I'm not familiar with the "cut up" technique. Thanks for the share. Your point is definitely valid. Might the phrase "novel thought" better describe the intention than "original thought"? "So it's not that computers can or cannot make original thought, it's that we have to decide what parts of the outputs are original: it's an observer-dependent variable, so to speak? What do you think?" This is a complicated statement. Novelty is certainly observer dependent. I suppose there should be two classes of novelty that consider context and perspective. Something can be new to the user (novel) and new as a solution (Novel). Though, there are also permutations to consider. For example, every year new users get online, but the Internet isn't a new solution. I think we'd have to define what merits the designation of "novel thought" and the context before discussing the possibility. It's an intriguing thought to consider regardless.

carapace 4y ago

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "original" though, eh? Are you familiar with the "cut up" technique? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-up_technique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-up_technique It could be considered a mechanical original thought generator? From Information Theory we have the result that the unpredictability of a message is a measure of it's information content. Right now we are concentrating on making systems that generate predictable results (the novelty is not just that they can generate realistic "thought", but also that they can do it "to spec", which is another way of saying that we can predict some of the aspects of the output of the machines: it looks like they understand us and are providing salient responses. So it's not that computers can or cannot make original thought, it's that we have to decide what parts of the outputs are original: it's an observer-dependent variable, so to speak? What do you think?

shanebellone 4y ago
Fair play. I'm not familiar with the "cut up" technique. Thanks for the share. Your point is definitely valid. Might the phrase "novel thought" better describe the intention than "original thought"? "So it's not that computers can or cannot make original thought, it's that we have to decide what parts of the outputs are original: it's an observer-dependent variable, so to speak? What do you think?" This is a complicated statement. Novelty is certainly observer dependent. I suppose there should be two classes of novelty that consider context and perspective. Something can be new to the user (novel) and new as a solution (Novel). Though, there are also permutations to consider. For example, every year new users get online, but the Internet isn't a new solution. I think we'd have to define what merits the designation of "novel thought" and the context before discussing the possibility. It's an intriguing thought to consider regardless.