Is that really design though – that’s iterative usually rather than conceptual

Hmm. Evolution rather than intelligent design.

Oh, and re: creativity – watch the video I embedded, take the AI composed music for example… there are also pieced of music composed and performed by AI, with differing performances depending on a variety of factors. And AI/human duets where they respond to each other.

Also stuff like:

http://botpoet.com/

And any devs might find this amusing:

http://git-man-page-generator.lokaltog.net/

(it’s amusing cos it’s all generated, but could be real…)

Music follows certain rules. Simple music follows simple rules. AI music sounds simple.

Hmm, perhaps – but simple things tend to get complex pretty quick. In ~100 years (let’s call that a lifetime) we go from no cars to self driving cars…or insert other example of swift technological progress here.

I’m just trying to argue it’s not impossible that we’ll see genuine AI creativity. Not that it exists in anything other than a simple form.

Music follows certain rules. Simple music follows simple rules. AI music sounds simple.

Much of 50s and 60s rock n roll was simple but it still sounded ace and took over the world 🙂
AC/DC’s tunes aren’t exactly complex either.

Just because AI can only manage simple creativity doesn’t mean it can’t produce stuff that we humans like.

Back on topic…………basically unless you are creating ideas or dealing with humans your job can / will be automated.

Take the car industry – far fewer people employed in making them.

Perhaps a few extra employed in the marketing / IT / styling department, but that wont make up for the massive reduction in the production line labour force.

produce stuff that we humans like.

Something to eat, perhaps?

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1672444/try-a-recipe-devised-by-ibms-supercomputer-chef

If we continue reductio ad absurdum, we get to a point where no human beings will earn enough to buy the goods being produced by automated means. So the endless pursuit of lower costs eventually kills the market. Shareholders take note.

Capitalism is the driver here. We will create machine to do things cheaply, and this will allow people to come up with new ideas using those cheap things and then do something else, because the something else can make them money.

All it takes is for a human to have an idea for something beyond that which the machines can do, and then start a business doing it. When humans run out of ideas, that’s when we’ll be in trouble. And historically that seems unlikely 🙂

At some point a human will have fix, repair or update the robots, more robots need more people to fix them.

The thing is though, if the robots have long service intervals then the jobs created to service them are not going to fill the lost jobs.

Capitalism is the driver here. We will create machine to do things cheaply, and this will allow people to come up with new ideas using those cheap things and then do something else, because the something else can make them money.

The point is, labour will have a much lower share of the profits so this will contribute to further inequality.

If we continue reductio ad absurdum, we get to a point where no human beings will earn enough to buy the goods being produced by automated means. So the endless pursuit of lower costs eventually kills the market. Shareholders take note.

Which is actually exactly what that papers predicts.

It’s all irrelevant, once Skynet becomes self aware we are all f**ked

If we continue reductio ad absurdum, we get to a point where no human beings will earn enough to buy the goods being produced by automated means. So the endless pursuit of lower costs eventually kills the market. Shareholders take note.

This is already happening, many economists believe that current inequality is hurting growth as the rich invest rather than consume.