“AI cannot think.”
“There is nothing creative about creativity.”
“Magic does not exist.”
These statements from Prof. Neil’s talk stuck with me today. They prompted a deep reflection on the intricate definitions of thinking, creativity, and design.
Geoffrey Hinton’s claim about an AI making a deductive assumption, suggesting a form of thinking, raised intriguing questions about the nature of cognition. As humans, we too often deduce thoughts based on assumptions. So how is our thinking different from that of an AI model? Aren’t humans also analysing everyday information and using deductive reasoning to think and take action? Professor Neil’s subsequent response that there are different forms of thinking emphasised the complexity of the matter. The dichotomy between AI’s deductive reasoning and Professor Neil’s claim that AI cannot truly “think” highlights the ambiguity in defining thinking itself.
The discourse extended to questions about creativity and design, challenging conventional beliefs. This reflection led me to ponder whether our apprehensions about AI stem from a lack of clarity in understanding these fundamental human attributes. What if AI can help us understand our own selves better? As Prof. Neil said, “Humans are not good at everything. We are really good at discriminating, not generating.” So, maybe AI can help with that? Instead of fearing its potential, maybe a paradigm shift is needed towards harnessing AI as a tool for amplifying human cognitive capacities. The lecture prompted a re-evaluation of our conceptual frameworks, urging me to embrace a more nuanced understanding of the dynamic relationship between AI and human cognition, hinting on a more symbiotic relationship for co-existence.