There are many uncreative humans. The labelling of creativity is subjectively judged....oddly by humans. Humans don't actually do anything creative or new. Much like AI, they are programmed with algorithms via genetics and training. A human is consistently (when they're actually thinking) searching databases for appropriate responses...many humans don't ever remember which responses didn't work or think the same will work for all. Not suggesting all AI is sentient, but when we control the rules for sentience, it's conveniently easy to deem AI or any other possible life form not sentient.
Additionally, this argument is fundamentally flawed as chimps are creative creatures. Lol...this experiment is dumb and utterly tone deaf and lacking true awareness...much like the AI it's referring to. AI isn't even the concern....it's artificial awareness, but at that point, what's artificial?
I would say the chimpanzees have done something novel but it was the researchers have done something creative by using their understanding of chimpanzees to modify the environment to produce this result. A programmer does not perform the mathematical algorithms themselves, but they do select and code them, but an algorithm is simply a step by step procedure. In this sense the scientific method is a type of algorithm and this research experiment is a program that the researchers have coded into space and time.
The counterargument that I meet most often is that, ultimately, the human brain is (often subconsciously) also operating based on patterns of correlation that it has developed through experience. But I do not agree with this, because this assertion implies an understanding of human cognition that we simply do not have at the moment. It could be that human cognition is simply the output of a vast neural network, but we just don't know enough about the brain to make that claim.
That's an interesting argument for sure, it focuses on the cellular level, but I see that even at a personal level individually we can be creative but it is only by networking via language that brings human creativity to its full potential. Our ideas are shaped by communicating them back and forth and when implementing big ideas we must organize minds and bodies to execute them. As I have worked in technology the more I understand that even if I am the most knowledgeable about the technology I can't be in two places at once and that really diminishes my ability to execute ideas I might have. Many things in the digital relm can be automated, but the more automation the more meaning is sublimated into abstractions. Once everything is a black box the less you really understand and consequently the less fine grained control you have and the less creative you can be. Humans are social animals, unlike current artificial intelligence technology, and our society and culture are so much more complex than chimpanzee society. Because of our complex society and language we have a much bigger impact on shaping the environment, but only at aggregate scale.
EDIT: I guess the point is that that argument, instead of suggesting that AI are creative, instead suggests that people AREN'T creative.
Yes. This counterargument essentially proposes that humans are not 'creative' in the way people tend to understand that word.
The point you make about the importance of communication is interesting, because it draws attention to the causal role of error and noise in creativity. Often people understand each other only inexactly when communicating, but this can be an enriching source of new ideas.
I suspect AI can be more creative than the vast majority of humans. It may be that a few humans can be on par or better driven by their motivation.
There are many uncreative humans. The labelling of creativity is subjectively judged....oddly by humans. Humans don't actually do anything creative or new. Much like AI, they are programmed with algorithms via genetics and training. A human is consistently (when they're actually thinking) searching databases for appropriate responses...many humans don't ever remember which responses didn't work or think the same will work for all. Not suggesting all AI is sentient, but when we control the rules for sentience, it's conveniently easy to deem AI or any other possible life form not sentient.
Additionally, this argument is fundamentally flawed as chimps are creative creatures. Lol...this experiment is dumb and utterly tone deaf and lacking true awareness...much like the AI it's referring to. AI isn't even the concern....it's artificial awareness, but at that point, what's artificial?
I would say the chimpanzees have done something novel but it was the researchers have done something creative by using their understanding of chimpanzees to modify the environment to produce this result. A programmer does not perform the mathematical algorithms themselves, but they do select and code them, but an algorithm is simply a step by step procedure. In this sense the scientific method is a type of algorithm and this research experiment is a program that the researchers have coded into space and time.
I would agree with you.
The counterargument that I meet most often is that, ultimately, the human brain is (often subconsciously) also operating based on patterns of correlation that it has developed through experience. But I do not agree with this, because this assertion implies an understanding of human cognition that we simply do not have at the moment. It could be that human cognition is simply the output of a vast neural network, but we just don't know enough about the brain to make that claim.
That's an interesting argument for sure, it focuses on the cellular level, but I see that even at a personal level individually we can be creative but it is only by networking via language that brings human creativity to its full potential. Our ideas are shaped by communicating them back and forth and when implementing big ideas we must organize minds and bodies to execute them. As I have worked in technology the more I understand that even if I am the most knowledgeable about the technology I can't be in two places at once and that really diminishes my ability to execute ideas I might have. Many things in the digital relm can be automated, but the more automation the more meaning is sublimated into abstractions. Once everything is a black box the less you really understand and consequently the less fine grained control you have and the less creative you can be. Humans are social animals, unlike current artificial intelligence technology, and our society and culture are so much more complex than chimpanzee society. Because of our complex society and language we have a much bigger impact on shaping the environment, but only at aggregate scale.
EDIT: I guess the point is that that argument, instead of suggesting that AI are creative, instead suggests that people AREN'T creative.
Yes. This counterargument essentially proposes that humans are not 'creative' in the way people tend to understand that word.
The point you make about the importance of communication is interesting, because it draws attention to the causal role of error and noise in creativity. Often people understand each other only inexactly when communicating, but this can be an enriching source of new ideas.