What percentage of humans make meaningful contributions to advancing science or technology? The overwhelming majority of us are just worker bees servicing the needs of the human population.
I agree with you on this point. It’s also arguable that less people with a better education system could yield the same result with less environmental impact.
But my point, poorly explained, is that whatever ChatGPT is, it isn’t original or creative thought as a human would do it.
Chomsky’s example (which is based off Turing): Do submarines swim? Yes, they swim — if that’s what you mean by swimming.
We don't have any clear definitions for "creativity" to begin with. In practice, in these contexts, it seems to be defined as "whatever only humans can do" - that is, the goalposts are automatically moved with every AI advancement.
How could they be moved when they aren't even defined in the first place? Scientists don't even know where to begin when it comes to studying the mind and human consciousness.
But yes, scientists can look at your experiments and show that they don't have anything in common with human thought.
> What percentage of humans make meaningful contributions to advancing science or technology?
I’m a nobody that you’ve never heard of and I’ve arguably made meaningful contributions. If that’s true, don’t you think there could be way more people out there than you or sibling commenter imply?
