larryepage Loc: North Texas area

The problem, as I see it, is that this technology is derivative. It only works by assembling bits and pieces of what already exists. It is not truly creative.

Our society right now has a very low threshold of what constitutes creative or innovative work. We can readily see that all around us, including in schools and on this site. Against this lowered threshold, the alleged capabilities of AI seem impressive. Measured against more meaningful standards, they pale pretty quickly.

I read an article that suggested that AI is within a few years of passing a singularity...becoming more capable than the human intelligence that created it. I believe (and hope) that is just idiotic nonsense. Of course, my belief does not guarantee that we will not just refuse to pull the plug and thus cede our existence to "the machine."

jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America

Answer to first sentence:

Wrong

Imaging AI's can and do produce absolutely new creative images which were'n produced by any human being before it.

The do so by studying millions of tagged images, that means photos, oil paintings, whatever that a person tagged with "boat", "plane", "dog", whatever.

It is *exactly* how an artist learns... o a child.

Btw: "derivative technology" is a legal term, and therefore a) does not need to have any relationship with the physical world and b) there are enough AI patents to support the notion that AI is not "derivative technology"

/**************************************************/

Answer to second sentence:

Wrong again.

There is no known limit on how complex or "good" work (by whatever standard) an AI can produce.

If there is a limitation, it is time bound. That means it will be lifted shortly. Just remembers Moore's Law.

You seem to be making uniformed statements, you can start learning about AI here:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.05800.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.02696.pdf

/**************************************************/

Answer to third sentence:

"Mein guter Freund und Kupferstecher" as my grandpa used to say each time anybody spoke something really naïve...

Believe me: we will no pull the plug. Period

Because Moore's Law and our own very nature, AI will advance boundless. At first by us, and then by itself. Did you know that AI is used to design the lastes ... ahh, AI chips?

On the other hand, genetic engineering is advancing at breakneck speeds... some say that in 30 to 50 years the human genome will be known as well as any other programming language. An we (or the AI) will be able to make any kind of modifications or creations from scratch.

At some point both lineages will met: carbon humans and silicone AI. And then and nobody will be able to tell which is which.

I have no proof, but I'm pretty sure that this happened millions of times before in the observable Universe, and that this is the real solution to Fermi's Paradox.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

We'll see. I know that therecognized art community seems fairly unimpressed and unconcerned about it. I also know that no reputable museums are reserving wall space to display any AI images.

There is interest here because it is technical and because it requires "gear." It fits the limited view and event horizons of the typical UHHer.

jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America

"I know that therecognized art community seems fairly unimpressed and unconcerned about it. I also know that no reputable museums are reserving wall space to display any AI images."

Of course... "reputable" artists don't like competence.

Business is another story: they embrace AI because it produces results fast, cheap and precise.

"There is interest here because it is technical and because it requires "gear." It fits the limited view and event horizons of the typical UHHer."

You sound exactly as my high school teacher who was convinced that photography wasn't a kind of art because... quote: "it required gear and was merely pointing at something and pressing a button."

Btw: did you bother to read any of the papers I've pointed out or everything you write is just your narrow minded uninformed opinion?

Just remember that they wanted to burn Galileo because the Jovian moons "weren't really there" because they could only bee seen trough the contraption with lenses he used.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Don't get me wrong. This will happen. Just not as art.

User ID

Now THERE is a statement with no fixed meaning whatsoever. I am certainly NOT saying it has no meaning. More like it has (approximately) infinite meanings. OTOH is there a functional difference between no meaning and an unmanageable gaggle of meanings ?

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

AI has been one of the "next big things" for almost 50 years. I first took a class related to artificial intelligence in 1978, when LISP was the programming language that was going to make it all happen. That's almost as long as we've been waiting for nuclear fusion, which was "almost a thing" with the tokamak reactors of the 1960s and early 1970s. But what AI is actually turning out to be seems to be quite a bit different from how it was initially visualized. The result is that it's pretty difficult to get overly excired about the whole thing.