I’d love to talk this through sometime Naval. My fear is that there is a big difference. I might rephrase and say “there may yet be unlimited room in creativity and discovery based areas, but repetitive occupations may be over...even in STEM.” But I don’t know if you’d agree.
-
-
We agree. STEM workers transfer repetitive jobs to software and robots. What remains is creative work and the demand for human creativity, in all facets of life, is unlimited.
13 replies 22 retweets 269 likes -
Replying to @naval @EricRWeinstein and
Where is it written that there will always be creative work that is *best* done by humans? And what guarantees that most humans will be able to do that work?
37 replies 27 retweets 296 likes -
Replying to @SamHarrisOrg @naval and
As a professional creative person with experience coding, I’d bet on the robots. My internal creative processes feel entirely programmable. Combine that code with rapid audience testing and I’d give human artists ten more years, tops.
28 replies 27 retweets 223 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @SamHarrisOrg and
I would take the other side of that bet, if well structured. But of course the bar for creativity (that’s in demand) keeps rising as the tools get better.
9 replies 5 retweets 128 likes -
Replying to @naval @SamHarrisOrg and
What creative field do you think will not be dominated by AI in ten years?
54 replies 5 retweets 39 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @naval and
Creative fields won’t be dominated by AI, they’ll be dominated by people who know how to use AI. For example, music. AI will suggest options composers would never even consider, and we will pick and choose, taking what we want. AI will be a collaborator. A co-writer.
3 replies 3 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @robgrav3s @naval and
That phase won’t last long. The machines will soon create better and faster via rapid A-B testing.
5 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @naval and
Follow this to its end. A million supercomputers, each creating 20-30 compositions per minute, each of which rivals Beethoven’s 5th. Who’s going to listen to these? No one will care. Fans need a story. They need an artist. Computers will never fill this role.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @robgrav3s @ScottAdamsSays and
I mean, it exists now. AI can already create landscapes that rival the best photos ever taken. No one cares. We want Ansel Adams originals. For fans of art, the artist cannot be disregarded.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes
Until the machines learn how to spike our dopamine with every work of art. Even Van Gogh painted more crap than masterpieces.
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @naval and
I agree, and I think it proves my point. People will buy literal shit if Van Gogh painted it. Because they care about the artist. This will never be true of AI.
0 replies 0 retweets 5 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
Anyway, thanks Scott. You’re a legend. Appreciate the discourse.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.