> AI can copy, emulate, and automate; it cannot create harmonious and finely humanly tuned things. It would never have created the works of art and architecture
I have yet to see evidence that this kind of assertion will age any better than the famous 64kB quote. True, AI can't create masterpieces today, but claiming it will never match humans feels more like emotional wishful thinking.
It's basically a religious argument that realistically can only hold if there is something in the brain which violates known physics and allows for a category of computation that isn't just different, but different enough to be impossible to emulate within known physics.
Otherwise the brain can't compute anything a computer can't (eventually) emulate.
Maybe it's possible - as an atheist I find that near impossible to imagine, but I won't entirely dismiss the possibility, but I doubt it.
a ‘masterpiece’ is a very subjective term. Most are viewed as such not because of some objectively measurable quality but because of their uniqueness/originality (at the time) and context. In that regard it’s hard to imagine AI could achieve that until it became very good at imitating humans.
I have yet to see evidence that this kind of assertion will age any better than the famous 64kB quote. True, AI can't create masterpieces today, but claiming it will never match humans feels more like emotional wishful thinking.