I't even worse than this. If you ask recent AIs the same question all over again, you might get different answers (with some degree of diversity).

But none of them is novel to human kind. It's novel to you, but not to our species.

AI is nailing us to the manifold that we created at the first place.

▲

dpe82 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Is that really a problem though? Almost nobody does anything "novel to humankind" - besides the odd research professor here and there, we're all just remixing existing stuff in new-to-us ways.

▲

Antibabelic 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There's a deliberateness to human creativity that goes beyond simply "remixing existing stuff", even if it's a significant part of it. Think about how you'd write a piece of software. The process behind writing a book or making a painting isn't fundamentally dissimilar. There's a reason why people use the word "derivative" pejoratively.

▲

whiplash451 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The "odd research professor here and there" invented vaccine and quantum mechanics and discovered radioactivity.

None of them would have achieved that with the help of a machine telling them "you're absolutely right!" whenever they'd be asking deep questions to it.

▲

TeMPOraL 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Where "invented" really means "had the right set of skills, knowledge and experience, and was paying attention at the exact right moment when all the pieces of the puzzle were collected together on the table".

Scientific and technological progress is inherently incremental. It takes a lot of hard work, dedication and specialization to spot the pieces ready to be connected - but the final act of putting them together is relatively simple, and most importantly, it requires all the puzzles to be there.

Which is why, historically, ~all scientific discoveries have been made by multiple researchers (or teams) independently, at roughly the same time - until all prerequisites are made, the next step is ~impossible, but the moment all are met, it becomes almost obvious to those in the know.

	▲	Antibabelic 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Which is why, historically, ~all scientific discoveries have been made by multiple researchers (or teams) independently, at roughly the same time This is quite a big claim. All of them? I know there are many discoveries that fit the pattern you're pointing out, but I wouldn't go as far as to say all, or even the majority of them do.