AI is not literally “generative” in the sense we’ve always given to the word. It’s pure statistics: the main thing it does is understand patterns and replicate them by calculating probabilities. At first I was thinking, “It could never replace human creativity for that reason,” but then I thought: “How much is AI reasoning really different from human reasoning?” Do humans really create things, or do they just understand patterns and elaborate on them in a more complex way? That is what happened in most historical inventions: the famous light bulb that appears when someone has an idea is often just a law or a pattern that is recognized in the natural world. All ideas start from something recognized in the pre-existing world. We know that modern AI could probably discover gravitational equations, as Newton did. But the real question is: could a sophisticated AI system have replaced Marconi in the creation of the first radio? Think about that. I believe the answer is more difficult than we think, because it is focused on a deep philosophical concept: the distinction between discovery and creation. submitted by /u/passeerix
Originally posted by u/passeerix on r/ArtificialInteligence