Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluefirebrand | Hacker News Reader

> That's true but we have to ask do humans actually create engaging, new ideas

This is a red herring, and entirely irrelevant

The question of whether or not humans or AI "do" create new ideas is not relevant

The question is whether or not humans or AI can create new ideas

Humans quite obviously can, because humans did. Even if you see the same common themes for 10000 years, at some point those themes were created by humans. We must be capable of creating new ideas, even if we don't actually do it very much.

AI may not even be capable of creating new ideas. It probably isn't in its current state, and may not ever be

View on HN

The red herring argument you're making here is your own. You were saying because ideas are here therefore humans must have been capable of creating them. There is no evidence of that other than saying because it's here therefore it had to come from a source of your own presupposing.

If you do not know where the original ideas came from or how they originated it is impossible to determine if AI is capable of doing the same thing. Even accepting the premise that humans did originate these ideas, there zero evidence that they did it spontaneously with no inputs. So with that premise in hand if AI is provided the same inputs it is likely they would produce the same outputs. Considering whatever those inputs where is completely unknown and unknowable at this point All of it is conjecture except for the fact that humans are effectively not creating net new ideas therefore there should be no expectation that AI is able to do that either.

How are you suggesting these ideas are here if humans didn't create them?

I don't need to make a suggestion on how something came to be, It would be up to the person who says it happened in a certain way to provide the evidence to support that. It is not evidence in any meaningful way to say because it's here now therefore it must have been done by humans. It likely was but that doesn't mean it was entirely done by humans absent any external input.

Claiming that these ideas were the sole creation of humans with zero external input seems to be the same argument that intelligent design people make when they look at the complexity of biological systems. Are you a proponent of intelligent design? Because they draw the same conclusions that something of such complexity must have had an initial creator.

If you bother to read up a few comments you will see the entire point of this thread is that there is a base assumption that AI cannot create anything absent the supplied input that they've been given. So refocus on that and my response that humans have not been shown to create anything absent the supplied input that they have been given. To make an assumption that humans created something absent inputs would require an extraordinary amount of proof demonstrating that that's possible.

I have no idea how you would demonstrate that's possible because humans continually receive input from their surroundings all of the time.

> If you do not know where the original ideas came from or how they originated

What are you talking about

We do know where ideas came from! They came from humans! We sent humans to the moon using ideas about rocketry that a human invented, we know that because some of those people were alive when we were alive!

Look at the current AI LLM boom? The people responsible for that technology is alive today, you can talk to them!

Have you been reading the prior comments or did you just come to spout something off about space travel that was totally irrelevant?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com