Confessions of a researchaholic

Nowadays AI can generate very high-quality content across documents, code, images, audios, videos, 3D models, and games (which basically incorporate every medium). However, the consumption of such content is still limited by human attention and time. We might want to use AI summarization for work-related content, but not for leisure content for which direct consumption is the whole point. (OK sometimes I watch highlights without watching a game, but only if I missed it live and wished to catch up on the key moments.)

Thus, human creativity remains the deciding factor in which content will be consumed, and AI is just a tool to help produce it, in higher efficiency and (hopefully) higher quality as well. Given the homogeneity of AI-generated content, human generated content, despite being less “perfect”, may still be more unique and less appalling to human consumers.

According to Thiebaud, art cannot be replaced. So an art work, once created, remains unique. In contrast, a scientific model or theory can be invalidated and supplanted by newer ones.

[After watching this YouTube video about people pivoting to blue collar jobs due to AI]

Let’s say AI replaces or discourages certain creative tasks (like writers or artists).

Eventually nobody is willing to or able to perform such tasks, or only a few highly skilled people can and will.

And then only the AI can create such artifacts, like novels or paintings.

Would such creations just regurgitates of the original human creations? If so, would we lose forever the capability to create something really new?

Or have the humans already lost the capability to create something new, and are just recombining existing ideas?

And/or like all past technological advancements, AI will help us open new ways to create things that we have never imagined before?

Do you use different social medias for different purposes?

For example, I (mostly) use Instagram/Behance for art, LinkedIn for work, Facebook for life, Twitter for news, and blog for thoughts.

I see others use social medias in a mixed way which seems suboptimal to me because people are on different social medias for potentially different purposes under different moods.
For example, when I am on Facebook I am usually looking more for travel photos than research papers or technical presentations, but tend to see the reverse in my social feed.

I could think of a few reasons for this mixed use: some people might be (active) on one or two social medias only, some people might have a different interpretation of the usages (e.g., their work might be a main part of their life), and some people might not care about the differences.

I joked that the world needs computer scientists because only they can fix the bugs they created.

Bugs are basically intended consequences of the code originally wrote.

But then I realized that unintended consequences apply to all human creations, such as technology (e.g., carbon emission), economy (e.g., globalization), policy (e.g., communism), and culture (e.g., feminism).

How would individual cells of our bodies work together as individuals?
The sense of self might be an evolutionary construct to help that happen, without other (deep) philosophical or religious reasons.

Programmers are well aware of the fact that every time we add some new code we may also create new bugs.
(And when we fix the old bugs we may create new ones, ad infinitum.)

This seems to apply to technology in general, for impact in climate, environment, biology, economy, culture, society, etc.