Re: As research into artificial intelligence progresses, some futurists ar
[#permalink]
27 Jul 2025, 00:07
Again, I must respectfully disagree. There are only two sentences I see in this short paragraph that even comes remotely close to Cs claims about more creative fields. The sentences, " However reasonable this fear may seem, humans need not worry about being completely replaced in the job market. Currently, robots have replaced humans only in rote, repetitive jobs, such as automobile assembly lines." That's not close enough to suddenly jump to a conclusion which includes (and I believe suddenly 'introduces' ) artistic arts. Not only that, but C suggests that art experts couldn't distinguish between human-created, and artificially-created art. In the present, NOT the future. If that is the case, human artists and future and PRESENT societies actually have PLENTY to worry about. If a machine (or device) can replicate the skill of even non-repetitive and more creative tasks or achievements, that poses a problem. There are already lawsuits and controversies concerning copyright and patent infringements, etc, and not just between people, but people using various hardware or software. If art is to endure, the artists must come up with ideas that a panel of experts CAN distinguish from artificial creations. The paragraph's reading comp questions already say that it's hard to tell the difference between a purely human effort to create more highly regarded individuated art work, and an effort by engineers to match that artistic human genius with devices that are programmed use algorithms to "build better mousetraps," of art. That's engineering, not art, and frankly, many engineers as well as normal people, believe that creativity, itself, simply obeys engineering systems already wired or pre-wired into our brains and behavior. Write back, please, and again tell me patiently why E is incorrect. Thanks. Steve