On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:
> > T > > he "writing books" category seems a bit silly. Which books? I interpret that to mean write a book that a significant number of people actually want to read, and not just because of the novelty of being a book written by a AI. > > > The > > technical manual of a programming language? I think a book that explained how to program in C in a way that was easier for humans to understand than any book on C in existence today would take more brainpower than James Joyce needed to write any of his highbrow novels. Mr. Joyce has not stood the test of time very well. A century ago only a tiny minority of specialists appreciated the works of Joyce and Einstein and today it's still the same with Joyce while Einstein has entered the popular culture. It's true that even today most don't understand exactly what Einstein did (although many more understand Einstein than understand Joyce) but Einstein wasn't writing about the human condition, Joyce was or claimed to be, and that is inherently more accessible. Or at least it should be. > > > Or something like "On the > > Road"? If the history of AI has taught us anything it's that the things we thought were intellectually easy (visual recognition of objects, manual manipulation) were hard and the things we thought were intellectually hard (Chess, GO, solving equations) were easy. I have a hunch a AI would find it more difficult to write a book like "On the Road" than " Finnegans Wake "; and the AI would find it even more difficult to compel hundreds of millions of people to continue reading as Rowling did in Harry Potter. Joyce's character Molly Bloom is almost completely unknown to the human race as is every word Joyce ever wrote. For everyone who has heard of Molly Bloom a hundred have heard of Mike Hammer, a thousand have heard of Hercule Periot, and ten thousand have heard of Harry Potter. The Molly Bloom meme is weak but the Harry Potter meme is not, and it takes brains to engineer that. > > And how can a non-human entity be better than humans at writing > > about the human experience? I don't know, I'm not smart enough to be able to answer that question, but I'll bet a AI could. > > > And even if it is, doesn't it just become > > a deception? > Who cares? It makes no difference to the outcome, deception or not the AI "just" made you do what it wanted you to do. And that takes brains. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
