There are a finite number of tasks that humans need performed to survive and prosper reasonably well. (Informal proof: There are a finite number of humans; some humans do prosper reasonably well; therefore, performance of some finite number of tasks is sufficient to allow these humans to prosper.)
To assert that robots or programs cannot do all of these tasks implies that there is at least one such task that robots or programs cannot perform. (I am choosing not to use “AI” as a noun, to bracket questions such as general intelligence or consciousness.)
If you construe “cannot” to also encompass “cannot because they will be prevented from doing so”, there will be a host of tasks (e.g. social roles, from pastor to psychiatrist) that will remain out of reach for AI, either because AI isn’t accepted by costumers as performing the task (e.g. backlash to the DaVinci robotic surgery system) or because they are barred from performing the task (e.g. strong unions pressuring for subsidies in the form of “may be done only by humans”).
Sure. We don’t take programs to be artists either, but we do have “procedurally generated content” in computer games, taking some of the place that would otherwise be filled by the work of a human artist. Even though the program is not a person and has no social role, it creates some economic value that otherwise would require a person. Procedurally-generated stories don’t seem so far off. either.
I do believe that AI will one day be able to do what we do, but I guess the answers to “which ones” will be either “innovate” or “art”.
The only argument I have to say AI will one day be able to do it, is that our brains are computers and could theoretically be simulated by computers, so there must be no fundamental reason for which AI will one day be able to do all what we do. But that only excludes making AI being absolutely impossible, it doesn’t prove we’ll actually succeed in doing it.
There are a finite number of tasks that humans need performed to survive and prosper reasonably well. (Informal proof: There are a finite number of humans; some humans do prosper reasonably well; therefore, performance of some finite number of tasks is sufficient to allow these humans to prosper.)
To assert that robots or programs cannot do all of these tasks implies that there is at least one such task that robots or programs cannot perform. (I am choosing not to use “AI” as a noun, to bracket questions such as general intelligence or consciousness.)
I would ask, then, which ones?
If you construe “cannot” to also encompass “cannot because they will be prevented from doing so”, there will be a host of tasks (e.g. social roles, from pastor to psychiatrist) that will remain out of reach for AI, either because AI isn’t accepted by costumers as performing the task (e.g. backlash to the DaVinci robotic surgery system) or because they are barred from performing the task (e.g. strong unions pressuring for subsidies in the form of “may be done only by humans”).
Sure. We don’t take programs to be artists either, but we do have “procedurally generated content” in computer games, taking some of the place that would otherwise be filled by the work of a human artist. Even though the program is not a person and has no social role, it creates some economic value that otherwise would require a person. Procedurally-generated stories don’t seem so far off. either.
I do believe that AI will one day be able to do what we do, but I guess the answers to “which ones” will be either “innovate” or “art”.
The only argument I have to say AI will one day be able to do it, is that our brains are computers and could theoretically be simulated by computers, so there must be no fundamental reason for which AI will one day be able to do all what we do. But that only excludes making AI being absolutely impossible, it doesn’t prove we’ll actually succeed in doing it.