←back to thread

721 points bradgessler | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.729s | source
Show context
abathologist ◴[] No.44010933[source]
I think we are going to be seeing a vast partitioning in society in the next months and years.

The process of forming expressions just is the process of conceptual and rational articulation (as per Brandom). Those who misunderstand this -- believing that concepts are ready made, then encoded and decoded from permutations of tokens, or, worse, who have no room to think of reasoning or conceptualization at all -- they will be automated away.

I don't mean that their jobs will be automated: I mean that they will cede sapience and resign to becoming robotic. A robot is just a "person whose work or activities are entirely mechanical" (https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=robot).

I'm afraid far too many are captive to the ideology of productionism (which is just a corollary of consumerism). Creative activity is not about content production. The aim of our creation is communication and mutual-transformation. Generation of digital artifacts may be useful for these purposes, but most uses seem to assume content production is the point, and that is a dark, sad, dead end.

replies(7): >>44011338 #>>44011643 #>>44012297 #>>44012674 #>>44012689 #>>44017606 #>>44025036 #
fennecbutt ◴[] No.44011338[source]
99% if not 100% of human thought and general output is derivative. Everything we create or do is based on something we've experienced or seen.

Try to think of an object that doesn't exist, and isn't based on anything you've ever seen before, a completely new object with no basis in our reality. It's impossible.

Writers made elves by adding pointy ears to a human. That's it.

replies(16): >>44011373 #>>44011433 #>>44011440 #>>44011470 #>>44011473 #>>44011609 #>>44011611 #>>44011656 #>>44011742 #>>44011785 #>>44011971 #>>44012311 #>>44012336 #>>44012625 #>>44012927 #>>44018665 #
bccdee ◴[] No.44011971[source]
No, that's not true.

Quick, what's 51 plus 92?

Now: Did you think back to a time someone else added these numbers together, or are you doing it yourself, right now, in your head? I'm sure it's not the first time these numbers have ever been summed, but that doesn't matter. You're doing it now, independently.

Just because something isn't unique, doesn't make it derivative. We rediscover things every day.

replies(4): >>44013494 #>>44013884 #>>44015379 #>>44025856 #
1. griffzhowl ◴[] No.44015379[source]
Pointing out that we can mechanically apply an algorithm on novel inputs is possibly the worst defence of human creativity I can think of in this context.
replies(1): >>44024492 #
2. bccdee ◴[] No.44024492[source]
Good thing I'm not nebulously defending creativity, then.

I'm directly replying to the notion that something is derivative if it is "based on something we've experienced or seen." The fact that rote math calculations are generally less original than creative expressions makes my argument stronger, not weaker.

replies(1): >>44024608 #
3. griffzhowl ◴[] No.44024608[source]
Right, but the general context of the thread is a discussion about how human thought or creative activity more generally contrasts with (current) machine capabilities. That's the sense in which I thought that adding two numbers is the worst example. It's notably the paradigmatic thing that machines are better at than any human