4 ms·

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 creati

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.

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.