These days the general belief is that human+computer is better than either individually. Sure, the computer didn't produce a perfect article. But it did produce something a competent writer could turn into a decent article in an hour or two.crfriend wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 11:03 pm AI is not the panacea that it's made out to be, and I'm not convinced that pursuing AS [0] might not be better as a research experiment, At the moment, AI is incapable of making the leaps of imagination that mimic what gifted humans (and that's a subset of the species) are capable of. The information and concepts just aren't there, and there's no clear way to algorithmically translate concepts into what a computer can interpret. Creativity still remains a human endeavour.
I'm not sure about your reference to creativity. Historically the trend has been "computers can't do X because it requires something only humans can do" to "X isn't really a sign of intelligence anyway". First chess computers couldn't beat humans, then they could. Then Go computers couldn't beat humans, then they could. Then computers couldn't drive cars safely, until they could. Computers start producing artworks comparable to any human artist, but no "it's not real art". A computer program produces patent applications for novel ideas, but they no, the computer didn't invent it, the author of the program did. Now a computer produces a grammatically correct article clearly about a particular topic, and people say "ah, but it's not really creative". We don't know how creativity works in humans, so how can we be sure computers can't do it?
I think many people are looking for something to differentiate themselves from machine. I think we're just complicated machines that work differently, but in essence not so different. Just in scale and complexity. People are looking for aliens amongst the stars, but we're going to create them ourselves first here on earth.