5 ms·

I don't think there is an upper bound on the number of people working in creative fields. What proportion of the world's chimpanzees work in creative fields? Y

I don't think there is an upper bound on the number of people working in creative fields. What proportion of the world's chimpanzees work in creative fields? You don't think that humans would be in competition with AI's in the creative marketplace of the future?

ivankirigin 18y ago
Huh? At best, animals in the wild are equivalent to humans subsisting on nature. That life is hard, and you don't have time for much else.
- gravitycop 18y ago
  animals in the wild No. Chimpanzees. Their intelligence and creativity are just below those of humans. They compete in today's society against humans in creative fields. http://images.google.com/images?q=bedtime+for+bonzo http://images.google.com/images?q=bedtime+for+bonzo What proportion of them alive today work in creative fields in today's society? today in the future chimps < humans humans < AI chimps:humans::humans:AI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
  - jerf 18y ago
    "They compete in today's society against humans in creative fields." No, they don't. To compete, they must be in the same market. Chimps aren't in the same market as humans until you face a serious choice between Tom Hanks and a chimpanzee for your next dramatic role. Frankly, "we have AIs that can build the next Casablanca" is on the other side of the singularity. There's so many possibilities at that point that we can't speculate. "Humans are reduced to twiddling their thumbs" is only one possibility of many, and I'd rate it pretty low for a number of reasons.
    - gravitycop 18y ago
      >> They compete in today's society against humans in creative fields. > No, they don't. To compete, they must be in the same market. Chimpanzees create works of fine art: http://images.google.com/images?q=chimpanzee+painting http://images.google.com/images?q=chimpanzee+painting They compete against human artists for prestige, and their works command sums of money. Chimpanzees perform in dramatic roles in movies: http://images.google.com/images?q=chimpanzee+movie http://images.google.com/images?q=chimpanzee+movie http://images.google.com/images?q=chimp+bj+bear http://images.google.com/images?q=chimp+bj+bear Chimpanzees provide spectacle entertainment for paying customers by living in zoos: http://images.google.com/images?q=chimps+zoo http://images.google.com/images?q=chimps+zoo Perhaps humans, someday, will be living in zoos, providing spectacle entertainment for paying customers (AI) who vastly outclass them in terms of intelligence and creativity. Perhaps these humans will occasionally be given a role in a movie, and perhaps their "fine art works" will be commoditized based on their novelty value.
      - jerf 18y ago
        And there you go. You've exhausted the chimpanzee argument, and your third point is pathetic. Turtles do that too. Meanwhile, I can't hardly even begin to summarize the human contribution to the arts in the same number of words. You have anecdote-itis. You have no sense of scale. Your argument is so bad it's not even worth addressing any further. I hope for your own sake that you are trolling, because if this is what passes for a convincing argument in your world, you must make a lot of bad decisions.
        gravitycop 18y ago
        Turtles do that [provide spectacle entertainment for paying customers by living in zoos] too. Turtles are intelligent. Chimps are intelligent. Both compete against humans in the entertainment market. Both do not compete very well against humans. Chimps compete better than turtles. Entertainment competitiveness: turtles > chimps > humans Entertainment competitiveness beyond some point in the future: turtles > chimps > humans > AI
  - ivankirigin 18y ago
    Ohh, I see your point. I think you're glomming together "the future" without being precise about the level of AI. You don't need human level intelligence to replace drivers, factory workers, etc. Human dexterity and vision are two aspects that are really hard to replicate that have nothing to do with strong AI. They will be solved first. So when I talk about robots displacing jobs, I mean robots that are more capable than today's generation, but not necessarily a super AI. That's why the comparison with chimps was confusing: we were talking about different kinds of robots. As for strong AI, I don't think it is going to be an "us" vs. "them". Humans will not only demand the best intelligence advancement medicine will offer, but will also try to merge with computer intelligence seamlessly. It isn't going to be humans with guns vs. super smart robots with lasers. It is going to be strong AI with humans that are machine enhanced. The creative professionals in that future are all going to be part machine. This isn't going to happen very soon. At least a few decades. The disruption from capable robots will start within 10 years.
    - gravitycop 18y ago
      I think you're glomming together "the future" without being precise about the level of AI. Wouldn't it be absurd to be precise about static data when discussing trends over time?
      - ivankirigin 18y ago
        Wow, your one-liners are really obtuse. I don't know what the hell you're talking about again. You can at least admit technology evolves, right? It isn't static? So a prediction about changes over time involves phases of that evolution. Robots taking factory jobs aren't smart enough to be creative.
        yters 18y ago
        gravitycop is talking about the future's potential, no matter how distant. He thinks at some point our level of competition with AI will be equivalent to chimps and us, therefore the same societal roles apply, but between us and AI. You are just talking about the foreseeable future, and don't foresee this happening anytime soon, which gravitycop doesn't necessarily disagree with.
sho 18y ago
'If you tried, if any Mind tried, could you impersonate my style?' the Chelgrian asked. 'Could you write a piece - a symphony, say - that would appear, to the critical appraiser, to be by me, and which, when I heard it, I'd imagine being proud to have written?' The avatar frowned as it walked. It clasped its hands behind its back. It took a few more steps. 'Yes, I imagine that would be possible.' 'Would it be easy?' 'No. No more easy than any complicated task.' 'But you could do it much more quickly than I could?' 'I'd have to suppose so.' 'Hmm.' Ziller paused. The avatar turned to face him. Behind Ziller, the rocks and veil trees of the deepening gorge moved swiftly past. The barge rocked gently beneath their feet. 'So what,' the Chelgrian asked, 'is the point of me or anybody else writing a symphony, or anything else?' The avatar raised its brows in surprise. 'Well, for one thing, if you do it, it's you who gets the feeling of achievement.' 'Ignoring the subjective. What would be the point for those listening to it?' 'They'd know it was one of their own species, not a Mind, who created it.' 'Ignoring that, too; suppose they weren't told it was by an AI, or didn't care.' 'If they hadn't been told then the comparison isn't complete; information is being concealed. If they don't care, then they're unlike any group of humans I've ever encountered.' 'But if you can-' 'Ziller, are you concerned that Minds - AIs, if you like - can create, or even just appear to create, original works of art?' 'Frankly, when they're the sort of original works of art that I create, yes.' 'Ziller, it doesn't matter. You have to think like a mountain climber.' 'Oh, do I?' 'Yes. Some people take days, sweat buckets, endure pain and cold and risk injury and - in some cases - permanent death to achieve the summit of a mountain only to discover there a party of their peers freshly arrived by aircraft and enjoying a light picnic.' 'If I was one of those climbers I'd be pretty damned annoyed.' 'Well, it is considered rather impolite to land an aircraft on a summit which people are at that moment struggling up to the hard way, but it can and does happen. Good manners indicate that the picnic ought to be shared and that those who arrived by aircraft express awe and respect for the accomplishment of the climbers.' 'The point, of course, is that the people who spent days and sweated buckets could also have taken an aircraft to the summit if all they'd wanted was to absorb the view. It is the struggle that they crave. The sense of achievement is produced by the route to and from the peak, not by the peak itself. It is just the fold between the pages.' The avatar hesitated. It put its head a little to one side and narrowed its eyes. 'How far do I have to take this analogy, Cr Ziller?' 'You've made your point, but this mountain climber still wonders if he ought to re-educate his soul to the joys of flight and stepping out onto someone else's summit.' 'Better to create your own. Come on; I've a dying man to see on his way.'

ivankirigin 18y ago

Huh? At best, animals in the wild are equivalent to humans subsisting on nature. That life is hard, and you don't have time for much else.

gravitycop 18y ago
animals in the wild No. Chimpanzees. Their intelligence and creativity are just below those of humans. They compete in today's society against humans in creative fields. http://images.google.com/images?q=bedtime+for+bonzo http://images.google.com/images?q=bedtime+for+bonzo What proportion of them alive today work in creative fields in today's society? today in the future chimps < humans humans < AI chimps:humans::humans:AI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
- jerf 18y ago
  "They compete in today's society against humans in creative fields." No, they don't. To compete, they must be in the same market. Chimps aren't in the same market as humans until you face a serious choice between Tom Hanks and a chimpanzee for your next dramatic role. Frankly, "we have AIs that can build the next Casablanca" is on the other side of the singularity. There's so many possibilities at that point that we can't speculate. "Humans are reduced to twiddling their thumbs" is only one possibility of many, and I'd rate it pretty low for a number of reasons.
  - gravitycop 18y ago
    >> They compete in today's society against humans in creative fields. > No, they don't. To compete, they must be in the same market. Chimpanzees create works of fine art: http://images.google.com/images?q=chimpanzee+painting http://images.google.com/images?q=chimpanzee+painting They compete against human artists for prestige, and their works command sums of money. Chimpanzees perform in dramatic roles in movies: http://images.google.com/images?q=chimpanzee+movie http://images.google.com/images?q=chimpanzee+movie http://images.google.com/images?q=chimp+bj+bear http://images.google.com/images?q=chimp+bj+bear Chimpanzees provide spectacle entertainment for paying customers by living in zoos: http://images.google.com/images?q=chimps+zoo http://images.google.com/images?q=chimps+zoo Perhaps humans, someday, will be living in zoos, providing spectacle entertainment for paying customers (AI) who vastly outclass them in terms of intelligence and creativity. Perhaps these humans will occasionally be given a role in a movie, and perhaps their "fine art works" will be commoditized based on their novelty value.
    - jerf 18y ago
      And there you go. You've exhausted the chimpanzee argument, and your third point is pathetic. Turtles do that too. Meanwhile, I can't hardly even begin to summarize the human contribution to the arts in the same number of words. You have anecdote-itis. You have no sense of scale. Your argument is so bad it's not even worth addressing any further. I hope for your own sake that you are trolling, because if this is what passes for a convincing argument in your world, you must make a lot of bad decisions.
      - gravitycop 18y ago
        Turtles do that [provide spectacle entertainment for paying customers by living in zoos] too. Turtles are intelligent. Chimps are intelligent. Both compete against humans in the entertainment market. Both do not compete very well against humans. Chimps compete better than turtles. Entertainment competitiveness: turtles > chimps > humans Entertainment competitiveness beyond some point in the future: turtles > chimps > humans > AI
- ivankirigin 18y ago
  Ohh, I see your point. I think you're glomming together "the future" without being precise about the level of AI. You don't need human level intelligence to replace drivers, factory workers, etc. Human dexterity and vision are two aspects that are really hard to replicate that have nothing to do with strong AI. They will be solved first. So when I talk about robots displacing jobs, I mean robots that are more capable than today's generation, but not necessarily a super AI. That's why the comparison with chimps was confusing: we were talking about different kinds of robots. As for strong AI, I don't think it is going to be an "us" vs. "them". Humans will not only demand the best intelligence advancement medicine will offer, but will also try to merge with computer intelligence seamlessly. It isn't going to be humans with guns vs. super smart robots with lasers. It is going to be strong AI with humans that are machine enhanced. The creative professionals in that future are all going to be part machine. This isn't going to happen very soon. At least a few decades. The disruption from capable robots will start within 10 years.
  - gravitycop 18y ago
    I think you're glomming together "the future" without being precise about the level of AI. Wouldn't it be absurd to be precise about static data when discussing trends over time?
    - ivankirigin 18y ago
      Wow, your one-liners are really obtuse. I don't know what the hell you're talking about again. You can at least admit technology evolves, right? It isn't static? So a prediction about changes over time involves phases of that evolution. Robots taking factory jobs aren't smart enough to be creative.
      - yters 18y ago
        gravitycop is talking about the future's potential, no matter how distant. He thinks at some point our level of competition with AI will be equivalent to chimps and us, therefore the same societal roles apply, but between us and AI. You are just talking about the foreseeable future, and don't foresee this happening anytime soon, which gravitycop doesn't necessarily disagree with.

sho 18y ago

'If you tried, if any Mind tried, could you impersonate my style?' the Chelgrian asked. 'Could you write a piece - a symphony, say - that would appear, to the critical appraiser, to be by me, and which, when I heard it, I'd imagine being proud to have written?' The avatar frowned as it walked. It clasped its hands behind its back. It took a few more steps. 'Yes, I imagine that would be possible.' 'Would it be easy?' 'No. No more easy than any complicated task.' 'But you could do it much more quickly than I could?' 'I'd have to suppose so.' 'Hmm.' Ziller paused. The avatar turned to face him. Behind Ziller, the rocks and veil trees of the deepening gorge moved swiftly past. The barge rocked gently beneath their feet. 'So what,' the Chelgrian asked, 'is the point of me or anybody else writing a symphony, or anything else?' The avatar raised its brows in surprise. 'Well, for one thing, if you do it, it's you who gets the feeling of achievement.' 'Ignoring the subjective. What would be the point for those listening to it?' 'They'd know it was one of their own species, not a Mind, who created it.' 'Ignoring that, too; suppose they weren't told it was by an AI, or didn't care.' 'If they hadn't been told then the comparison isn't complete; information is being concealed. If they don't care, then they're unlike any group of humans I've ever encountered.' 'But if you can-' 'Ziller, are you concerned that Minds - AIs, if you like - can create, or even just appear to create, original works of art?' 'Frankly, when they're the sort of original works of art that I create, yes.' 'Ziller, it doesn't matter. You have to think like a mountain climber.' 'Oh, do I?' 'Yes. Some people take days, sweat buckets, endure pain and cold and risk injury and - in some cases - permanent death to achieve the summit of a mountain only to discover there a party of their peers freshly arrived by aircraft and enjoying a light picnic.' 'If I was one of those climbers I'd be pretty damned annoyed.' 'Well, it is considered rather impolite to land an aircraft on a summit which people are at that moment struggling up to the hard way, but it can and does happen. Good manners indicate that the picnic ought to be shared and that those who arrived by aircraft express awe and respect for the accomplishment of the climbers.' 'The point, of course, is that the people who spent days and sweated buckets could also have taken an aircraft to the summit if all they'd wanted was to absorb the view. It is the struggle that they crave. The sense of achievement is produced by the route to and from the peak, not by the peak itself. It is just the fold between the pages.' The avatar hesitated. It put its head a little to one side and narrowed its eyes. 'How far do I have to take this analogy, Cr Ziller?' 'You've made your point, but this mountain climber still wonders if he ought to re-educate his soul to the joys of flight and stepping out onto someone else's summit.' 'Better to create your own. Come on; I've a dying man to see on his way.'