It would be useful if you were able to nudge the perspective from "simply" to something a little more formal. The toolchains for these self-attending transformer models allow for interactivity, including memory and "online" processing (allowing for the bot to sit alone, iterating over its input and output, gathering new data as needed, kneading old data as needed, etc.). I'm not suggesting we see many bots doing such so far. But some come close.
What you seem to be implying requires some sense of locality, a containment boundary for the human/bot, that cloud-based bots don't have. A little meat (or silicon) bag of skin running around in space, acquiring information from its trajectory through space provides such a build-up of a "story", a history, a Markovian provenance for their *next* expression, whether in interaction with another (like chess) or a seemingly novel piece of art (or testable scientific hypothesis). Cloud-based bots could have such. What a trajectory through space define for each of us bags of meat is a set of stable/coherent constraints guiding which information we see (and the construal through our sensory-motor boundary and into our inertial learning machinery). Were the bots also given a well-formed set of training constraints that we humans could understand, we would begin thinking of them as autonomous agents, as opposed to oracles in the temple. And *then*, as autonomous agents, it would start to be interesting to see them interact with one another in the same way we might enjoy watching humans interact. On 6/22/24 20:32, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
AI will never fully replace humans in the realm of pure art. While AI has made impressive strides in generating art, humans inherently gravitate towards creations by fellow humans. This preference stems from our deep-seated connection to human experiences and emotions. Consider the analogy of chess: AI can easily outplay the human world chess champion, yet we remain uninterested in AI-exclusive tournaments. The reason is simple—our fascination lies with human competitors and their stories, not with machines. This extends beyond chess to all forms of art. Whether it’s music, literature, or visual arts, the knowledge that a human mind and soul crafted the piece adds a unique layer of significance. It's not that humans are disinterested in non-human phenomena such as AI, the stars, or mathematics. There is a wide spectrum of interests among individuals, with some drawn more to human-centered pursuits and others to abstract or scientific endeavours. However, as a collective, human-related creations consistently hold a special place in our hearts. When a human plays chess, the essence of the game is enriched by knowing the opponent is also human. Similarly, when we listen to music, read a novel, or admire a painting, the awareness that it was created by another human being adds depth to our appreciation. This connection to the human aspect of art is, in my opinion, irreplaceable by AI. I can't prove this definitively; it is simply my perspective.
-- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
